I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at request of any senator.
(—) (): I table a ministerial statement by the Minister for Finance and Acting Special Minister of State, Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann, on approval of exemption to Guidelines on Information and Advertising Campaigns by non-corporate Commonwealth entities.
When you are shopping for your weekly groceries at the supermarket and you turn over the packet to read the ingredients on a bag of chips, a block of chocolate or a box of biscuits, you would expect that what you see is what you get. But, believe it or not, that is not always the case. What is being hidden from us is potentially impacting our health and destroying the environment. Palm oil is one of the world's leading agricultural commodities and is widely used. In fact, palm oil can be found in approximately 40 per cent of food products at the supermarket, and every year the average Australian consumes around 10 kilos of palm oil without even knowing it. That is because, under the current food labelling laws, manufacturers are able to label palm oil as vegetable oil on the packaging. For starters, the palm is a fruit, not a vegetable. Secondly, palm oil is high in saturated fat and low in polyunsaturated fat, and, according to the Heart Foundation, biomedical research indicates that the consumption of palm oil increases the risk of heart disease. Thirdly, in South-East Asia alone, the equivalent of 300 soccer fields is deforested every hour for palm oil plantation, and each year more than 1,000 orangutans die as a result of the land clearing in this region.
There is no question that the current labelling laws are inadequate and are misleading consumers. The fact that palm oil is allowed to be disguised as vegetable oil means that Australians aren't able to make an informed choice for themselves and for their family about what they buy at the supermarket because they are not being given all of the facts. In 2011, when my NXT colleague Senator Xenophon first introduced a bill to strengthen labelling laws for food containing palm oil, Zoos Victoria, Adelaide Zoo and Auckland Zoo in New Zealand launched the Don't Palm Us Off campaign, calling for palm oil to be labelled specifically on food packaging. In the first 12 months of that campaign, more than 130,000 people signed on to show their concern about palm oil. In November 2016, Zoos Victoria relaunched the same campaign, this time attracting a staggering 160,000 signatures.
But the concerns of Australians are falling on deaf ears. Still nothing has been done to ensure consumers can easily determine if the products they are purchasing contain palm oil. In 2011, when Senator Xenophon's previous bill was debated in the Senate, the following remarks were made during the second reading debate by the coalition, who were then in opposition:
There are many processes. They go on for a long time. As Senator Siewert outlined, this has been proposed for many years. But there has been no action. So the coalition, in supporting this bill, is simply saying consumers have the right to know what is in the food and goods they purchase. We believe this will improve consumers' ability to make informed choices.
The community is backing these reforms. Some manufacturers are backing these reforms. It seems that, when the coalition was in opposition, they were also backing these reforms. So why isn't it compulsory for palm oil to be specifically listed as an ingredient on all packaging? Put simply, if the saying 'We are what we eat' is true, then we have the right to know what we are eating, and this bill will give consumers truthful, accurate and clear information about what they are purchasing. In the United States, the Code of Federal Regulations requires that each individual fat and/or oil ingredient of a food is to be declared by its specific common or usual name—that is, palm oil is listed as palm oil. Similarly, under the provisions of this bill, regardless of the amount of palm oil used in the product, palm oil must be listed as an ingredient.
It is important to be clear that this bill is not calling for a boycott of products which contain palm oil; rather, it is designed to enable consumers to know the whole truth about the ingredients a particular product contains so that they can make their own informed choice prior to purchase. Just like the inclusion of wheat in a product is labelled to inform consumers with possible allergies, so too should shoppers be told that palm oil is contained in a particular food product. When Senator Xenophon announced his intention to move his bill back in 2010, he was contacted by dozens of people outraged that they didn't know and couldn't tell that palm oil was an ingredient in their food. Unfortunately, not much has changed in those seven years. The Nick Xenophon Team shares those frustrations. Consumers should be able to trust that, when the list of ingredients is printed on the packaging, all the ingredients are included on that list.
On the issue of conservation, palm oil can be produced sustainably and manufacturers should be encouraged to use certified sustainable palm oil rather than palm oil which is produced as a result of deforestation and a loss of wildlife habitat. In Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, a farmer will chop down all the trees on his land and sell the timber for money. He will then burn the stumps and plant oil palm, which is fast growing. He will crush the fruit to produce palm oil and he can sell the shells of the palm fruit as food for cattle. By cutting down the trees, orangutans lose their habitat. In fact, 90 per cent of orangutan habitat has been lost already. It is forecast that, at the current rate of deforestation, orangutans could be extinct in the wild in fewer than 10 years. On a broader scale, the environmental impact of deforestation is significant. How can we be serious about looking after the environment when we're not encouraging businesses to farm sustainably?
Palm oil can be produced sustainably under criteria set out by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Sustainable palm oil plantations are established in already cleared land rather than through deforestation. The roundtable's criteria also includes requirements for reforestation along the river line, bans on pesticides, appropriate labour conditions and wildlife-friendly practices. Manufacturers who use certified sustainable palm oil will be able to list the use of the ingredient as CS palm oil to indicate its sustainable origins and to show consumers that they are sourcing their ingredient from a sustainable palm oil plantation. This bill will encourage food manufacturers to purchase from sustainable palm oil producers and will provide consumers with all the information they need to make their own choice.
Calling palm oil vegetable oil is misleading. Not telling Australians that palm oil is one of the ingredients in or used to make a product is unfair. There have been some significant changes to food labelling laws made in this parliament and the NXT welcomes these changes. However, more can be done and the discontent felt by the community at the lack of action on this issue is growing. Consumers have a right to know and this bill gives them that right.
I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and I congratulate the Nick Xenophon Team for bringing this important issue before the Senate. I don't doubt for a moment the very genuine sincerity of the Nick Xenophon Team in seeking to address an issue that many Australians are concerned about. However, the government does not support the bill. I will outline some of the concerns the government has about the proposed bill and some of the reasons why the government has reservations about this approach to tackling this issue.
We absolutely understand that Australian consumers are concerned about the ingredients in the products they purchase for themselves and their families. Primarily, what consumers want to know about the food they eat is that it's safe and that the household products that they purchase will not harm them or their families. This is how consumers make decisions about the products that they buy. They are also concerned, very critically, about the price of the products that they buy and they want to receive good value for those products. That's something we should never lose sight of.
The other issues that consumers do and should take into account when buying products include environmental concerns. However, the purpose of government regulation for labelling is first and foremost, as it should be, about the health and safety of consumers and ensuring that consumers get the information they need so that they can make informed choices, including on environmental matters, if they so choose.
Palm oil is a product that is widely used in the foods and products that Australian households use every day. As the bill acknowledges, there is a difference between the sustainable production of palm oil and the production of palm oil that damages the environment, and the habitat of orangutans in particular. It is worth pausing and reflecting on that for a moment. Not all palm oil is bad, and there are ways and means of harvesting palm oil that are environmentally sustainable and do not have a negative impact on animal life. That is a very critical thing, because sometimes in this debate you are left with the impression that palm oil is an evil product that only does harm, when in fact that is not the case.
Currently, manufacturers and importers can—and many do—voluntarily declare in the ingredient list on their labels that there is palm oil in their products. Many businesses operating in Australia are taking action on this issue and seeking to use sustainable palm oil in the products that they manufacture and sell. In addition, these businesses clearly label the use of palm oil. If we think about it, that makes perfect sense. Businesses are aware of and responding to a consumer preference. They know that this issue is of concern to consumers and they're providing consumers with the information to make an educated choice about their purchases. That is something we should welcome. In addition, I think it is very promising and welcome to see that many companies are members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which promotes the supply of palm oil that is sourced from eco-friendly areas.
Voluntary certification allows businesses to provide information to consumers, who may be motivated by social, environmental, economic or other ethical concerns, by labelling their products as using sustainable palm oil. Voluntary certification is a really powerful tool that is used in a range of areas. Everyone will be familiar with, for example, the Heart Foundation's tick of approval. It's not government mandated; it is not compulsory; but many consumers value that Heart Foundation tick of approval in making their choices in the supermarket. It allows them to choose products which are healthier for them and their families. This solves the problem in the market without any government intervention. There are consumers who are motivated to buy products of this type, there is a private certifier who is willing to certify that products meet these standards, and there are businesses who want to ensure that their products receive this certification and meet those standards so that they can reach those consumers. Not every business wants to participate in this, and not every product will be labelled in this way. But if you are a consumer for whom this is an important issue then there is the necessary information in the marketplace for you to make an informed choice, and it didn't require any government regulation.
There are lots of other examples like the Heart Foundation's tick of approval—for example, many of the Fairtrade and organic-certified products are done in a completely private-sector way, with no government regulation requiring it. There are other companies that choose to market their products based primarily on their environmental sustainability. A good example is—and this followed some media controversy—companies that sell tuna and choose to emphasise that it is sustainably harvested and dolphin-free. No government required them to do that, but they've gone out and done that because they know that it's important to consumers. This is now beginning to take place in the palm oil space, and I think that's a very welcome development.
The private senator's bill that Senator Kakoschke-Moore has outlined proposes to amend schedule 2—Australian Consumer Law—of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The Australian Consumer Law provides broad protections for consumers by ensuring that the information that businesses provide is not false, misleading or deceptive. The proposal to amend the ACL by inserting a new section 134A would require the government to make an information standard specifically relating to the labelling of goods containing palm oil within 12 months of the bill's passage. Importantly, this would include all goods that contain any amount of palm oil as an ingredient, including foods, shampoos, cosmetics and washing powders. To my knowledge, it doesn't differentiate between palm oil that is sustainably harvested and other palm oil; it just requires that any use of palm oil be labelled. Given that we know that some palm oil is unsustainably harvested and problematic but some is harvested in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way, this is one area of concern.
The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that the amendment is for the purpose of environmental protection. This is not consistent with the role of the Australian Consumer Law. The purpose of the Australian Consumer Law is to improve consumer wellbeing through consumer empowerment and protection to foster effective competition and enable confident participation in markets. It is not the purpose of Australian Consumer Law to impose an obligation on businesses to provide all of the information that consumers may find useful in deciding whether or not to purchase a product. The Consumer Law is there to protect consumers from false and misleading representations that may appear on the label. Of course, it is not practical to mandate that every piece of potentially useful information is on the label of every product. There is a limited amount of real estate to do so. If we required companies to provide every potential piece of relevant information, there would be no room for anything else on a product's label other than government-mandated warnings and information.
This bill is motivated by genuine environmental concerns about deforestation—particularly in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia—but it is not particularly motivated by a concern that consumers are being misled about the nature of the goods or that palm oil poses a safety issue for consumers, which is the primary purpose of the Australian Consumer Law.
The explanatory memorandum also provides that the proposed bill encourages the use of certified sustainable palm oil. However, there is nothing in the wording of the bill that would make such a proposal enforceable, nor is the Consumer Law the appropriate vehicle for environmental protection measures, as I've mentioned. The Consumer Law's objectives are to ensure that consumers are not disadvantaged when they engage in trade or commerce and that they are protected from unfair practices.
Importantly, the bill is also inconsistent with the requirements of the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Australian Consumer Law, which requires that any amendment to the Australian Consumer Law—including the making of information and standards—is subject to formal consultation and voting by states and territories. This process has not been followed with this bill—and it's worth noting that this intergovernmental agreement process is, in fact, not a coalition government process but a Labor process that was put in place by the previous government.
If the proposed bill was successful, there is a very real possibility that the states and territories may decide not to apply the provision because the changes were not made in accordance with the intergovernmental agreement. This is appropriate, given many areas of consumer law are regulated by the states. In addition, while it's possible to insert such a provision, it would potentially be legally ineffective in compelling the minister to make an information standard—that is, the bill could have no effect.
The proposed amendment to the Australian Consumer Law is inconsistent with the generic nature of Australian consumer law, which is currently sufficiently broad enough to cover conduct relating to the representation of ingredients such as palm oil. The passage of the bill has the potential to erode the benefits of having a national, generic, consistent consumer law. Information standards are only considered as a regulatory option after other responses have been considered as insufficient and where there is strong evidence of consumer detriment or widespread noncompliance. To date, the government does not believe there has been strong evidence of consumer detriment presented.
The bill has not been subject to any regulatory impact analysis. The proposal would likely impose significant compliance costs on businesses, including the cost of designing new labels and potentially relabelling existing products. It would also potentially require stringent record keeping and information transfer procedures as the bill requires all products containing any palm oil be labelled—as I said before, even if it is not necessarily harmful or in meaningful amounts.
The labelling of palm oil or palm oil derived chemicals in cosmetics and products is already regulated through the Trade Practices (Consumer Product Information Standards) (Cosmetic) Regulations 1991. This information standard requires that cosmetic products list all ingredients or palm oil derived chemicals. While the Australian Consumer Law is not the appropriate place to deal with these issues, the Australian government is taking action in other areas.
The government acknowledges that there is community interest and concern in the use and labelling of palm oil as an ingredient in food products in particular. The government is well aware of the issue of palm oil in foods and is currently examining these issues with our state and territory colleagues. Currently, the labelling of added fats—including palm oil and sugars—in food is being considered by the Australian and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation, with regulatory and non-regulatory options being developed. This is the appropriate forum to consider food labelling.
Currently, manufacturers do not have to list palm oil as an ingredient in food. They can, as Senator Kakoschke-Moore mentioned, use a generic term such as 'vegetable oil'. The issue of food labelling should be left to be considered in detail by the forum. This is important work, and it would be inappropriate for this bill to circumvent that process. The government must endeavour to balance improving the information on food labels to meet consumers' needs against maintaining the marketing flexibility and minimising the regulatory burden on industry and barriers to trade.
It's worth reflecting on the previous bill that Senator Xenophon introduced in 2011, which was called the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2011. It sought to amend section 33 of the Australian Consumer Law. That bill was introduced and read for the first time on 4 July 2011. The bill was subsequently removed from the Notice Paper on 20 March, 2012, during the 43rd parliament. The 2011 bill was examined by the House Standing Committee on Economics. On 19 September, 2011, the House Standing Committee on Economics presented its report recommending that the House of Representatives at the time should not pass that Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill because the legislation was flawed and would result in a range of unintended consequences. The government members of the day—and I should point out that they were Labor members—recommended that the House not pass the bill.
Coalition opposition members at the time were also concerned about the bill. They particularly mentioned the trade related considerations raised in evidence to the committee. The coalition members were concerned that this issue was only briefly touched upon in a Senate inquiry report and that the evidence presented to the committee highlighted Australia's trade obligations as a legitimate area of public policy concern. Evidence to the committee highlighted a number of trade related risks. Opposition members at the time—coalition members—recognised that it may well be arguable that the bill offended World Trade Organization rules by indirectly advancing the interests of local vegetable oil production that may be a substitute for palm oil products and may invoke potentially harmful retaliatory action and lengthy dispute resolution processes.
These are the reasons the government is reluctant to support the bill, while still respecting the genuine motivations of the Nick Xenophon Team in raising this issue.
I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2017. Palm oil is an edible vegetable oil derived from the pulp of oil palm fruits. Oil can also be derived from the kernel of the same fruit, but this is usually referred to as palm kernel oil. Palm oil is around half saturated fats, which is uncommon for vegetable fats. It is semisolid at room temperature. It's a common cooking ingredient in the tropical belt. Palm oil is also used extensively in the commercial processed food industry as it is cheaper than competitors like canola oil. It also yields more oil per hectare than any other vegetable oil. Palm oil's semi-solid state at room temperature also makes it suitable as a cheap substitute for butter or other shortening in baking. Interestingly, during the industrial revolution, palm oil became sought after by British traders in Asia and Africa for use as an industrial lubricant for machinery. It can also form the basis of soap products. It's part of the derivative behind the Palmolive soap brand—the other, of course, being olive oil.
The bulk of the world's palm oil is produced in Indonesia and Malaysia. Eighty five per cent of global production comes from these two countries. Indonesia produces 50 million tonnes per year while Malaysia produces 20 million tonnes. People in both countries have benefited significantly from economic development achieved through expanded palm oil agriculture and export. Of course, there has been criticism of the way that palm oil plantations have spread in South-East Asia over recent decades. Specifically, the concerns are around deforestation of rainforests and jungle to plant the palm oil monoculture.
There are two environmental concerns in relation to deforestation. Aside from general concerns around the loss of biodiversity, the native forests of Indonesia and Malaysia are the habitats of the Sumatran and Bornean orangutans. Along with illegal logging, clearing of rainforests for oil palm plantations has been blamed for orangutan habitat loss in South-East Asia. This is a particular concern because of the highly endangered status of these animals. There's also concern around carbon emissions. As we know, forests absorb carbon from our atmosphere and lock it up as trees grow. The deforestation process to clear for oil palm plantations is often done by burning. This, essentially, unlocks centuries of carbon absorbed by the forests and releases it into the atmosphere.
These concerns have led to campaigns against palm oil in developed countries like Australia. These campaigns have, in part, advocated an ethical consumption ethos, whereby consumers refrain from purchasing goods that they know contain palm oil. In Australia there are currently no legal requirements to list palm oil specifically as an ingredient. It is usually listed as 'vegetable oil' without a specific indication of which type of vegetable oil it is.
This bill, introduced by Senator Xenophon, seeks to oblige the minister to ensure that palm oil is labelled as such when used as an ingredient in consumer goods, including foods. The bill seeks to enable ethical consumption campaigns so that consumers who want to help save orangutan habitats know which products contain palm oil and can avoid purchasing them. Labor shares Senator Xenophon's concern about the deforestation in South-East Asia not only because of its impact on endangered primate populations but also because of a broader concern about the impacts on our climate. Labor also notes that Senator Xenophon has form in relation to labelling products that contained palm oil. Last time Senator Xenophon attempted to pass a change to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act as his vehicle for achieving the purpose he now purports to achieve through this bill. It's worth reminding ourselves of that history because it is instructive to this debate.
In government, Labor recognised that there was significant consumer and industry interest in food labelling, including in the area of environmental food labelling, so we worked through COAG and the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council to commission a comprehensive food-labelling review. This was undertaken by an independent expert panel headed up by Dr Neal Blewett, who was, of course, Minister for Health from 1983 to 1987, and who oversaw the implementation of Medicare. On 28 January 2011, the Gillard government officially released the report Labelling logic. It was the final report of the review of food labelling law and policy. Recommendation 12 of the review referred to labelling of added palm oils to food and it recommended:
That where sugars, fats or vegetable oils are added as separate ingredients in a food, the terms 'added sugars' and 'added fats' and/or 'added vegetable oils' be used in the ingredient list as the generic term, followed by a bracketed list (e.g., added sugars (fructose, glucose, syrup, honey), added fats (palm oil, milk fat) or added vegetable oils (sunflower oil, palm oil)).
In December 2011, the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation agreed on a response to the recommendations contained in the review. As part of that response, the forum asked the food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, to work on a number of recommendations, including recommendation 12. Food Standards Australia New Zealand provided that advice in June 2016. In response to their meeting in November 2016, ministers noted that the Food Standards Australia New Zealand technical evaluation identified that labelling of sugars, fats and vegetable oils is a very complex issue. It also identified a number of developments in food labelling and dietary advice since the initial labelling review was undertaken.
Ministers agreed that consideration of the recommendations should continue as two separate pieces of work. One is for the food regulation standing committee to lead policy work on the next steps in relation to naming resources of fats and oils in order to support consumers to make informed choice consistent with the Australian and New Zealand dietary guidelines. In April this year ministers decided to extend the scope of the committee's work to develop regulatory and non-regulatory options for identifying fats and oils on food labels. Labor looks forward to these proposals for comprehensive labelling reform. The government may wish to use this debate to update the parliament on the progress of that work. I say all of that by way of background, but I return to Senator Xenophon's bill.
Senator Xenophon's bill falls short for a few reasons. The first is that the bill amends schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act, which is commonly referred to as the Australian Consumer Law, yet the Australian Consumer Law is not just a Commonwealth act. It was created in consultation with, and is enforced in concert with, states and territories and their respective consumer protection regulators. While I've no doubt as to Senator Xenophon's good intentions, seeking to change the Australian Consumer Law without consulting states and territories is, at best, discourteous and, at worst, undermines the settled agreement between the Commonwealth and the states and territories that underpins our national consumer protection regime.
The second is that the bill singles out palm oil labelling as requiring an explicit reference in the ACL, despite the fact that product labelling reform in Australia continues to be worked out far more broadly. Senator Xenophon seems to be unconcerned, for example, that the government is considering removing the requirement for product measurement markings—the weight or volume of a product—to be marked on the front of a package. They're doing this so as to remove the requirement for European cosmetic companies to relabel their imported make-up, but it can only lead to mums and dads having to spend more time in the supermarket aisle trying to figure out how much product is actually in the packet.
Senator Xenophon also seems to be unconcerned with enshrining the specification of other types of oils or fats—canola oil, for example—in legislation. More generally, the level of specificity that the bill proposes to insert in one section of the Australian Consumer Law is not in keeping with the structure of the rest of schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act. It undermines its structural integrity, fairness and consistency. Like many parts of public policy, product labelling is actually far more nuanced than many realise. Labor is committed to improving Australia's product-labelling requirements, as I've described, but not like this. Labelling reform should be done in the best interests of consumers, it should be done in consultation with relevant stakeholders and it should be done in accordance with the law as well as government agreements.
The third concern Labor has about this bill's inadequacy is that its intent is to prevent deforestation overseas. Notwithstanding our doubts about using Australian consumer law as an instrument of foreign policy, Labor notes that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said in their submission to Senator Xenophon's 2011 bill:
There is no evidence to suggest that labelling products which use palm oil would be an effective means to address … concerns of deforestation in South East Asia.
DFAT went on to explain that they believe that the Australian government's $300 million investment in projects to directly address deforestation and illegal logging in South-East Asia would deliver inherent benefits for the region's biodiversity, including orangutan habitats. Also, in its inquiry into Senator Xenophon's previous bill—the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2011—the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics could find no evidence that palm oil labelling arrested deforestation and concluded:
The committee is of the view that the Bill would not affect deforestation of orangutan habitats because it will not act on the factors driving deforestation. Deforestation is occurring because Indonesia and Malaysia wish to improve their living standards, and one of the most effective means of doing so is through agriculture. Further, one of the most commercially successful crops in the tropics is palm oil.
Indeed, since Senator Xenophon's last private senator's bill on deforestation in South-East Asia, Australia has not been idle and our national agencies have continued to work directly with the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia on deforestation issues.
The fourth concern is that it won't work. Under section 134 of schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010—the act this bill seeks to amend—the minister already has the power to make the information standards that Senator Xenophon's bill prescribes. That section clearly says:
134 Making information standards for goods and services
(1) The Commonwealth Minister may, by written notice published on the internet, make an information standard for one or both of the following:
(a) goods of a particular kind;
(b) services of a particular kind.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), an information standard for goods or services of a particular kind may:
(a) make provision in relation to the content of information about goods or services of that kind; or
(b) require the provision of specified information about goods or services of that kind; or
(c) provide for the manner or form in which such information is to be provided; or
(d) provide that such information is not to be provided in a specified manner or form; or
(e) provide that information of a specified kind is not to be provided about goods or services of that kind; or
(f) assign a meaning to specified information about goods or services.
Notwithstanding the current long white cloud hanging over the eligibility of Deputy Prime Minister Joyce to sit as a member of the House of Representatives, under current legislation this bill will only become law if the government agrees to it. But if the government is agreeable to implementing an information standard about palm oil or, indeed, about specifying all fats and oils in a product, the bill is redundant because the minister already has the power to do so. Labor respects the work that Senator Xenophon is doing to highlight this important environmental issue. We're ready to work with all comers on the issues around palm oil and the best way to address them. Indeed, Labor is methodically continuing to pursue improvements to Australia's product labelling arrangements in the interests of Australian consumers and will continue to do so.
I'm very pleased to be speaking today in support of the Nick Xenophon Team's bill to improve the labelling of palm oil in Australian products. My interest in the issue of palm oil and the impact of palm oil plantations on the world's environment dates back about 25 years, when I visited Sumatra. While there, I took the opportunity to spend a few days going on a walk through the Sumatran rainforest. I distinctly remember the experience of walking along a ridge line which had a national park on one side and unprotected forest on the other. What a contrast between the sounds—the amazing calls of the siamang gibbons and the sounds of vibrant, lively forest, absolutely rich with a whole range of different animal species, on one side and the constant roar of bulldozers and chainsaws on the other! It was a very moving experience.
Later in that trip, I visited the Bohorok Orangutan Centre, an orangutan sanctuary near the city of Medan, where I got to see some of the orangutans that had been rescued from the logging and deforestation activities in the surrounding area. To get up close to these orangutans was incredibly moving, to connect with them and to realise that we humans have no right to be sending such a species to extinction. And that's what the clearing of rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia is doing. It's consigning to extinction these incredibly beautiful, valuable, precious species like orangutans and all the other species that live in these forests.
I came back to Australia pretty fired up. I was already working on Australian forest issues. What could we do about this problem as Australians? This comes to the heart of the bill that's before us today. The very least we can do is give people here in Australia knowledge about the consequences of the food that they eat or the products they use. They should know that, if they use a product or eat a product that contains palm oil, in almost all circumstances—not all, but almost all—it has a direct connection with the clearing of rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia. By eating those products, they are directly connected to the close extinction of species like orangutans. It is due to that connection that there has been such a focus on palm oil in the Australian community, including from organisations that aren't activist organisations, such as the Melbourne Zoo. It's something that we here in Australia can do. We are empowered. We are able to make those consumer decisions.
There is the bigger question of how to stop the deforestation of tropical rainforests. There are so many ways in which we need to address that. Obviously, the most effective way would be for the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia to say that they will stop it happening by legislating and enforcing that legislation so that rainforest deforestation completely ceases. We, as Australians, can apply pressure. Our government can apply pressure to their governments to stop it happening, but that's an ongoing process. It's not easy for Australians to have the ability to suggest to other sovereign governments what they should be doing. Obviously, there are other international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement on climate, where the importance of stopping deforestation is recognised. There is international pressure on countries to maintain their forest cover and maintain the ability of the globe to soak up the carbon that we are polluting our atmosphere with.
For us here in Australia, the best thing that we have is the ability to act as consumers. In order to be able to act as consumers, we need information, and that's what this bill is aimed at providing people: information about whether the products that they are consuming actually contain palm oil. The other bit of information that we need is certification to account for palm oil that has been produced in a sustainable way. I note that there are still some question marks over the certification scheme and whether sustainably produced palm oil is necessarily sustainably produced, but that is an issue that's not covered by this legislation. The very minimum that we can do in order to have a tangible effect is give the citizens of Australia the opportunity to make informed decisions. I reject the arguments being put by the government today that this is too high a regulatory burden. Again, you're weighing up the value of giving consumers this information versus the regulatory burden. Every time we have had debates in this place about better labelling, we have heard the same tired arguments of the government—'It's going to increase the regulatory burden.' I'm sorry, there are things that we do because they are the right things to do. In fact, when those things are finally followed through, you see that the increased regulatory burden is actually very small and that having that regulation has a very significant impact that far outweighs the small extra cost of, in this case, improving labelling so that people know that palm oil is in the products.
I was interested to hear to Senator Farrell's contribution in terms of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's position—that having such labelling will not stop deforestation. Of course it's not going to stop deforestation in itself, but it's a contributing factor. It's something that we, as Australians, can do. It will make a connection between what's happening in Indonesia and Malaysia. It will put out a very public sign that there is no social licence. It will send a very strong message from Australia that we think that palm oil from plantations that have come from deforestation, the removal of tropical rainforest, is not acceptable.
I want to finish my contribution today by drawing the parallel between what's going on in Indonesia and Malaysia, and the deforestation there and the impact on species like orangutans and gibbons, with what is going on here in Australia. We have ongoing land clearing. In Queensland, we have land clearing of 300,000 hectares a year of woodlands. That is impacting species that are just as significant as the orangutans. They might not have the profile of orangutans, but one of them, koalas, absolutely has. Koala populations in Queensland are being devastated because of land clearing. We've got rare birds like the black-throated finch and we've got the endangered mahogany glider. They are being directly threatened by land clearing. They are endangered and being driven to extinction because of the land clearing that is going on here on our shores.
For the same reasons we need to have much better information in the public sphere about the potential here in Australia and we should be legislating to make sure this land clearing stops. We don't hear the same calls for the labelling and certification of food production that's the result of the clearing of forests and woodlands in Queensland. I think we should have a certification and labelling system for the food products, the beef and the lamb, that come from the land that's being cleared in Queensland. There should be similar labelling on Australian products.
We've got the issue of the land clearing in Queensland; we also have the issue of the ongoing logging of our native forests in Australia, where there are other endangered species. These include the Leadbeater's possum as well as the threatened swift parrot in Tasmania. They are being driven to extinction because of the commercial pressures on our native forests. We should have labelling that shows people where the products have come from, so people know that if they're buying mountain ash products, timber products, that are coming from the central highlands of Victoria, they are directly contributing to Leadbeater's possums being threatened and heading to extinction.
At the very least, if we had that labelling, we also need to make sure that certification schemes are meaningful so that people have the information about the wood products that are coming from Australian forests and plantations. It is about the whole issue of giving people adequate information. We know that there are two competing certification systems for wood products in Australia. There's the Australian Forestry Standard, which is hardly worth the paper it's written on. All it basically says is that the forest operations have been conducted in accordance with the current government law. As we know, that allows the ongoing destruction of really rich and diverse forests. The FSC certification, the Forest Stewardship Council, is a much stronger certification. In terms of giving the community information, it is something that people should be looking for. We've got plantation wood products here in Australia that meet the FSC certification. If people are concerned about labelling and if they're concerned about the protection of forests when purchasing wood products, I would encourage them to look for FSC certification rather than anything else.
Coming back to this bill, it is a step forward and it is something that we as Australians can use. It is a relatively small thing for this parliament to agree to. Coming back to Senator Farrell's contribution that it actually won't be very meaningful because the minister already has the power, that the minister may move to allow such labelling—that's the whole point. The minister may move to do it but he or she has not moved to do it in the past. There hasn't been the political will to move on this sort of labelling. So this legislation would shift that from a 'may' to saying, 'This is something that has to happen.' It has to happen in the interests of giving Australians the information they need so that rather than contributing to ongoing environmentally destructive deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia, they can be making choices and decisions when purchasing these products that will be consistent with providing a much more sustainable future for us all. Thank you.
I want to thank the Nick Xenophon Team and Senator Kakoschke-Moore in particular for bringing forward the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2017. I think it's an interesting, timely and important debate for us to have. I have to say that you learn a lot by becoming an Australian senator. There are certain topics and issues that perhaps weren't the kinds of experiences that you may have had prior to coming into this place. I note that Senator Rice was outlining her experiences, having visited some of the areas that have been deforested, and the horrible things that palm oil has done to those communities. My own experiences with palm oil are nowhere near as serious or as significant. My understanding of it prior to coming into this chamber was as a product that my relatives used to put in their hair from time to time, and that created a devastation of its own kind, though nowhere near equivalent! That was a joke, Senator Rice. You're allowed to laugh now!
The intention of this bill I think is a good one. The intention of this bill is to draw attention and try and give consumers the power to make informed decisions when it comes to something like palm oil, being very conscious of the impact that it has in South-East Asia. That, as a point of principle, I think is quite a powerful one. In a strange way, I would even go so far as to say that I know others in the past, like Senator Leyonhjelm, with a strong libertarian perspective, have always supported the principle and the idea that people should be able to make informed decisions for themselves and that it leads to better outcomes when people are able to make those decisions.
The question, though, isn't whether or not those of us here believe that what is happening in the deforestation in South-East Asia is a good thing. Obviously it's not. The debate here is not about whether or not consumers should have as much information as possible and a broad right to know. I believe there is a universal view that informed consumers make better consumers and that people have the right to have an understanding so they can make decisions for themselves. But I do worry, I really worry, when we start going down the path of using labelling as the solution to everything, as a kind of very easy fix that we place on things, which is, 'If this is just labelled this way or that's labelled this way, then everything's going to be okay.' In fact, one could easily argue that there are a huge series of complexities with labelling, putting aside the many intersecting federal and state rules, regulations, agreements, laws, harmonisation and labelling structures that go on. Putting all that aside, there is also the point, worth making, that, when we place too much information in a lot of these labelling processes, we end up with a result in which the consumer ends up being less, not more, informed.
We found this where I spent a lot of my time in the Senate, working with financial services and financial service disclosures. I note that Senator Bushby, who also worked on these matters over a long period of time, was well aware that part of what we all, in a bipartisan manner, realised was wrong with the financial services industry wasn't that we weren't putting the obligation on companies to provide enough information; it was that so much information was being provided. People were getting 20- or 30-page disclosure statements that were incomprehensible and meaningless. That sense of overdisclosure, the tactic of 'snowing' people with information, actually made it more difficult for people to make informed choices and informed decisions.
I worry that it's sometimes a very, very easy fix, especially for politicians, to say: 'Just label it better. The issue's always going to be labelling. It's going to be simple; it's going to be labelling.' There are obviously challenges around labelling, but—and this is the debate—taking something like this one issue in isolation and treating it differently, breaking down the complicated processes we already have in place, the complicated structures, the complicated systems, the interweaving of federal and state relations when it comes to labelling, simply because we decide that this one issue of palm oil is particularly one that we're going to address, I think it opens a Pandora's box. I really do.
It worries me that we're making a series of special cases for this one product. If this were going to be presented as part of a broader debate—through the COAG process or through other formal processes for us to be able to have a debate within a broad structure—it is something that could be supported. I don't believe that what is happening here achieves the objectives that are wanted.
I note something that Senator Farrell said earlier, because I think it's the most important point here. It is that this bill just won't work. Under section 134 of schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the act this bill seeks to amend, the minister already has the power to make the information standard that Senator Xenophon's bill describes. That section clearly says
Making information standards for goods and services
(1) The Commonwealth Minister may, by written notice published on the internet, make an information standard—
Then it goes through and explains that. I urge anyone who is interested to google it.
So there are steps that can be taken. I do have my own concerns about the path we have chosen to take. While very legitimate points are being made about deforestation and its consequences, and about making sure that Australian people are aware of the consequences of using palm oil, I don't believe this bill achieves the objectives that it sets out to. Nonetheless, I think the fact that we are debating these issues in the Senate and that we are raising awareness should be congratulated. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I introduced the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Restoring Shortwave Radio) Bill 2017 a number of weeks ago. This bill is in direct response to the decision of the ABC's board and management to cease its short-wave transmission radio service to international audiences and to the Northern Territory on 31 January 2017. The purpose of this bill is to require the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to restore its short-wave transmission services, following an announcement by the ABC in December 2016 that it would end its short-wave transmission services in the NT. Indeed, because of the nature of short wave, those broadcasts actually went to the far north of South Australia, north of Coober Pedy, in the Pit lands. I imagine there would also have been parts of Queensland and the far north-east of Western Australia that would have benefited from this as well.
The decision was a bad decision because the ABC's short-wave transmission service is the only option for many people who live, work in and travel through rural and remote communities, including in the Northern Territory, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland. It is a vital service for emergency broadcasts, for news and for weather forecasts. Short-wave transmissions are reliable, are long range and are not interrupted by adverse weather conditions, unlike FM radio. For the ABC to say, as it did in the course of this inquiry: 'You can get your ABC app,'—hello!—the fact is that, unless you have online coverage in the middle of nowhere, where there isn't any mobile coverage, or unless you use satellite, which can be expensive, that is a fanciful suggestion.
The decision to cease the short-wave transmission service from the Northern Territory will mean ABC programs from Radio National and ABC local radio will no longer be available to those in vehicles and with portable radios in the remote parts of Australia referred to, including the top two-thirds of South Australia. It will also significantly impact on our near neighbours in the region, where these broadcasts have been a reliable source of news and current affairs, including emergency information.
Ceasing these broadcasts diminishes Australia's role in the region. In relation to that—and I acknowledge that this is a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to deal with—why is it that we have cut our short-wave services to our near neighbours in the Asia-Pacific when China, for instance, is doing the smart thing by expanding its short-wave coverage, by investing heavily in short wave, as are other countries? That footprint is a form of soft diplomacy that is very effective and that wins over hearts and minds in countries in the region. It seems a foolish and retrograde step from a foreign affairs perspective to retreat from the region, from our near neighbours, when other countries such as China are doing the smart thing and expanding their short-wave footprint in those regions. For instance, short-wave radio played a valuable role in providing information to communities during the civil disturbance that occurred in East Timor in the lead-up to independence. Short-wave radio was absolutely fundamental during the cyclone in Vanuatu. No less a person than the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, the Hon. Charlot Salwai, outlined how the people of Vanuatu relied on short-wave radio when Cyclone Pam struck in 2015. Prime Minister Salwai stated in his submission:
In times of crisis when other forms of media like FM and digital services are damaged or unavailable such communities rely on broadcasts safely transmitted from outside the disaster zone. This is exactly the role Radio Australia shortwave broadcasts played during Cyclone Pam.
… people around our nation relied on Radio Australia's shortwave broadcasts to stay up-to-date about the cyclone's progress and they took the thorough and expert advice on the shortwave service very seriously indeed. It is undoubtedly the case that Radio Australia's shortwave service helped save Ni-Vanuatu lives.
It is unusual to get the Prime Minister of another nation to put in a submission to a Senate inquiry. It happened in this case because the Prime Minister of Vanuatu said that this is a big deal. Effectively, he was saying these short-wave broadcasts saved lives.
Leaving aside the issue of emergency broadcasts, having that Australian voice in the region—I think it was broadcast in pidgin, as well—through those short-wave broadcasts, builds good and strong relationships with our near neighbours. It builds good and strong relationships that lead to further strong bilateral relationships, further trade, economic development and strengthening our neighbours. It is a good thing for Australia to have strong and stable neighbours.
So I do not understand why the ABC board did this—and it is not a criticism of the government as such, because it was the ABC board that did this. I understand issues of editorial independence very much and I value that independence. But it seems that the ABC board made a decision to reallocate resources to digital services in capital cities. It made a decision that ignores the bush. It made a decision that actually means that we are going backwards in terms of our relationship with our near neighbours and for all those Australian expats who live in our near neighbours. So this has been a bad move. This is not about compromising the ABC's editorial independence. We are not telling the ABC what they should put in their broadcasts. We are just saying: you need to reallocate some resources so that we have this valuable service for the bush and for our near neighbours.
Truck drivers use the short-wave service on their regular trips from Adelaide to Darwin and back. Having no access prevents these drivers from having easy access to essential news, emergency announcements and weather information. It was Gary Williams, a long-haul truck driver based in Adelaide, who alerted me to this issue some months ago, and I thank Gary very much for that. He does about 40 trips each year from Adelaide to Darwin and is one of the thousands of people who relied on the ABC short-wave service. In the context of Senator McKenzie's bill, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Advocacy) Bill, Gary responded to the ABC's suggested remedy—that is, to go online—by plainly and simply stating: 'Mobile phone coverage only covers about 2,200 kilometres of the round trip. We are told by the people at the ABC that you can access the ABC via the app on your phone or over the internet or by the VAST satellite service. It's physically impossible—you just cannot do it.'
That brings in the question of those remote communities, particularly Indigenous communities, that will miss out on that short-wave broadcast because they are simply out of reach, particularly when they are on the road. Of course, if you have an antenna or digital coverage, you can get that coverage, but, if you're in a remote area and you're on the road, you're not going to get it. You can buy these portable short-wave radios. I think they are about 50 bucks and you can fit them into your truck. I think most truckies nowadays have that short-wave service. They won't be able to get Radio Australia. They'll be able to get Radio China's English language service or other countries' services, but not ours. And that is wrong.
This is an important piece of legislation for those people who live and work in and travel through rural and remote areas of Australia. That is why I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support it. I think that we could have an alternative approach—because it is all about finding a solution here—and that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade needs to look at this seriously, because a very small investment of several million dollars a year would make a big difference in terms of our footprint in the Asia-Pacific, and we have already shrunk that footprint over the years.
Radio Australia does terrific work. Their program Pacific Beat, for instance, is highly regarded and highly respected in the region. It seems a terrible decision has been made by the ABC board here, and this bill seeks to remedy that.
A committee inquired into this and made a report. That was a very useful exercise. The report deals with the size of the ABC short-wave audience prior to shutdown. The ABC suggested the size was relatively small. Others suggested that the ABC had significantly underestimated the size. What is clear is that there was no serious effort made to actually measure audience size. I am of the view, considering all of the evidence, that the audience size was much larger than the ABC calculated. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of truck drivers driving in those remote areas who use short wave. I know you can't respond from the chair, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, so a nod will suffice; it is quite disorderly, I know. My understanding is that, if you're a long distance truckie, it doesn't cost much more to get short wave added to your truck. That's what Gary Williams and, I believe, others do. It is pretty much a standard feature. If you are out in the bush, you get short wave as well. He can get China Radio International but he cannot get Radio Australia.
I think there are some question marks over the methodology used by the ABC in relation to this. There are some real issues in terms of ignoring concerns from the bush and, given the benefits to those Australians in remote areas and in the Asia-Pacific, it has been a bad call. I think it's worth reflecting on the issue of the international significance of that. We heard from Mr Dobell, who has particular expertise in foreign affairs issues. I think Mr Dobell is with ASPI, but I don't have that information in front of me. He does have a history of being involved in diplomacy and in these issues. He said:
… My understanding of China's shortwave investment is that it is taking up as many of allotments of shortwave frequencies and shortwave slots as it possibly can. Its investment in broadcasting is ratcheting up at a very large rate. So my answer is that China is investing in shortwave in a big way.
1.20 As Australia ramps down, China is filling the void.
That is a mistake. The other aspect of this is the international charter of the ABC. We heard from Mr Daniel Sloper, First Assistant Secretary, Pacific Division at Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He said:
We made clear to the ABC that we want them to continue to meet their international charter, that they need to continue coverage within the region, but we have not given a particular view about shortwave itself. We have left the decision about the technology to the ABC. We do not have the expertise on the particular technology.
That is fair enough, but they understand the importance of it. If you're in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea or on a remote island, there is no FM or digital coverage, and if you are on the move, short wave is the best way of getting information. If there has been a power blackout and towers have come down, short wave is the best alternative by far. The fact that there is now digital short wave shows you how technology has evolved in relation to this. We heard from Mr Gary Cratt, the director of Tecsun Radios Australia, a company that imports and resells portable short-wave receivers. He provided a very useful and contemporary analysis of the audience derived from his extensive customer contact. You can buy short-wave receivers for $50. It is quite inexpensive.
This is important for the bush. This is important for our near neighbours. This is important in the context of the ABC's charter obligations to all Australians and its international obligations. A massive mistake was made. I want to pay tribute to those members of parliament from the Northern Territory who have been very outspoken on this issue, and those from both sides of politics who are very concerned about the impact of this.
I commend this bill to my colleagues. It is an important issue, and it is not too late to restart those short-wave services. The content is there. We just need the medium in which to get it out there both to those remote communities in Australia and to our near neighbours.
I am an ardent supporter of the public broadcaster—the ABC—and its role in our rural and regional communities. Its independence needs to be protected to ensure that it can make operational and editorial decisions free from public interference or influence. The ABC is critical in providing news, information, current affairs, weather and emergency service broadcasts to those of us that live and work in regional Australia. However, being independent doesn't mean you should be beyond scrutiny. Being independent does not mean that wrong or poor decisions can't be made, and it's not unreasonable to scrutinise the decisions of an entity spending $1 billion of taxpayers' money annually.
Through the Senate inquiries conducted into my own bill and that of Senator Xenophon, which we are debating here today, we would see that, on the balance of probabilities, the decision of the ABC board back in December was made in error and as a result of a failure of process and proper governance. The ABC board's decision in December 2016 to terminate its remaining short-wave radio services into the NT—and, I might add, northern WA, northern Queensland and the Pacific region—on 31 January this year is a case in point. I thank Senator Xenophon for bringing this bill as an attempt to address that issue. It was a short-sighted decision that has and will continue to have far-reaching consequences. It adversely affects many people directly and indirectly, as the Senate committee inquiry into this issue and this bill has found. Short-wave radio may be an old technology, but it is cheap, effective, reliable and unaffected by factors such as bad weather or topography. Unlike many of the technologies the ABC has offered as replacements, it is able to cover vast areas from each transmission point.
It is inevitable that short wave will, at some point, be permanently withdrawn. However, this must not occur until solutions that are superior in quality, reliability, coverage and access become available, and right now they are not. That is the contention of both Northern Territory senators in this place from both sides and, indeed, Senator Xenophon and me, who have been very critical over a long period of time of the ABC's decision in this particular area. The ABC unilaterally decided to terminate its short-wave services from 31 January this year without consultation and without firm evidence to validate that decision, As Senator McCarthy and I have prosecuted in estimates since the decision was made, the ABC has failed to give us substantial or credible evidence as to why it made the decision. By unilaterally deciding to terminate its short-wave services, the ABC has effectively abandoned huge areas of the NT, in addition to breaching its obligation under the ABC charter with respect to our neighbours in the Pacific. Despite clinging to the assertion that fewer than 500 people access short-wave broadcasts in the NT, the ABC admitted in its evidence to the committee on 16 June this year that it had actually not undertaken any surveys of short-wave listeners prior to its decision to axe the service. We were told that the reason no surveys of short-wave listeners were conducted is that the ABC suspected listeners might be in regions where it's very difficult to survey them. Surely this is part of the whole point of continuing short-wave broadcasts in the first place: it reaches people in areas that are too remote or difficult to be able to broadcast to through other available platforms.
Given nobody asked the listeners what they thought, the predictable outpouring of anger to two Senate inquiries that followed has hardly been a surprise. Whether or not short-wave radio listeners in the NT live in places too difficult to ask them what we think—we call them GIs, the geographically impossibles—the fact that the ABC guess about just how many listeners its short-wave service attracts fails to take into account the farmers, fishermen, cattlemen, truck drivers, tour operators, transient users of short waves, residents of Indigenous communities, grey nomads and other mobile users who depend on this catch-all service into the NT, who now literally have been left in silence. That is outside of those in the Pacific that Senator Xenophon has been discussing. The Northern Territory government, which gave evidence to our inquiry, has estimated a non-resident tourist population making approximately 600,000 visits to remote parts of the Territory annually, in addition to a minimum of 650 fishing and fishing tourism operators in NT waters every year. These groups are also likely to be adversely impacted by the ABC's short-wave decision. I could go on and on about the lack of consultation.
The ABC didn't seek advice from its own advisory boards or from Friends of the ABC—despite some of those people living in remote areas of, particularly, northern South Australia and the NT—in deciding to kill off the ABC short wave, despite saying the savings from axing the short wave would be reinvested to grow digital services in places like Darwin and Canberra. Those communities are already well serviced with other platforms on which people can access the ABC's broadcasts.
It didn't consult the Northern Territory government either to have any understanding about where connectivity existed within the boundaries of the NT. The National Association of Shortwave Broadcasters estimated that at the time the ABC board made its decision approximately one per cent of the population used short-wave radio. The Northern Territory, in turn, accounts for one per cent of Australia's overall population. Even without making any adjustments for the fact that these users are likely to be disproportionately located in rural and remote areas, it suggests that 2½ thousand listeners in the NT would be affected—more than 400 per cent more than what the ABC estimated the affect to the community would be.
Witnesses who appeared before the committee inquiry into my own Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Advocacy) Bill 2015 in Darwin put a human dimension to the consequences of this complete lack of meaningful consultation and the apparent disregard the ABC's decision showed for any consequences. Bruce Davey, a cruise boat operator, told the inquiry:
We have had absolute silence now. I do not know what is happening to the world … I will implore the Senate committee to fully understand the hunters, fishermen and numerous other stakeholders that have just been thrown to the winds here.
Also, representative bodies like the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association noted:
Mental health problems are already a considerable problem in remote areas—sitting in silence while the rest of the country has a radio dial chock full of stations …
It is absolutely unacceptable, when you think that some cattlemen—we had this evidence—who may be travelling 300 or 400 kilometres in a round trip on a day from the station to check bores are sitting there now in absolute silence. With short wave, they would have been able to access the public broadcaster's information, news and current affairs. That is only, I think, a fair and just use of the $1 billion Australians give to the ABC to service our communities.
Again, the Cattlemen's Association described the decision as an 'unjust and dishonest policy of exclusion and discrimination against remote and regional Australians'. I absolutely agree with their assessment of this board decision. The point here is that however few listeners there may have been, short wave was a connective tissue that allowed these users in remote places to still be part of the outside world. It kept them in the loop of what was going on. It brought them news, information, entertainment and sometimes even Senate debates. Now these people are stranded in silence.
The ABC's answer and response to our questions and their public media releases to the community was, 'It's OK, FM broadcast is the bedrock.' Or, even worse, 'You can download the digital app to access all of our broadcast services.' The problem around the FM/AM argument—even the ABC's director of regional admitted this to a Senate estimates hearing on 6 March—is that AM and FM transmission cover four per cent of the Northern Territory's land mass. Yes, that is 84 per cent of the NT's population, but when you are thinking about the fishermen, the transient workers and the truckies that Senator Xenophon spoke to who are traversing the other 96 per cent of the land mass of the NT, there is an incredible issue when you look at emergency service broadcasts, having an understanding and being connected to the broader world—something that the ABC board completely ignored and, indeed, tried to cover up in their public commentary and their media commentary around the time. By contrast, short wave covered everyone in the Northern Territory, irrespective of where they were. Aside from the coverage problem, AM and FM are affected by bad weather, and can only be received between 20 and 90 kilometres from the transmission point. Short wave covered the entire territory, an area of more than 1.4 million square kilometres, from three transmitters.
In fact, every alternative to short wave the ABC has put on the table through this public debate has something seriously wrong with it. The ABC has nominated mobile phones as part of the answer for internet streaming. As those of us from the bush know all too well, mobile phones are dependent on signal strength and coverage, and this can be often limited, particularly in areas as remote as the NT. It says satellite phones are part of the answer. These don't receive radio signals directly, though, and they are too slow and expensive for internet streaming of what signals they do receive.
Again, it pulled out the old classic, 'You can all just get VAST, the Viewer Access Satellite Television, technology.' That was going to be part of the answer. But, again, the ABC fundamentally misunderstands how we live and work in the regions. VAST has to be stationary. You can put it on your house. You can put it on the homestead. Yes, you'll be able to access the ABC services. But you can't put it on your ute. You can't put it on your motorbike. You can't put it on your fishing vessel. You can't be mobile, so it is of absolutely no use to the four-wheel-drivers, travellers, people on horseback et cetera that short wave could have actually assisted.
It all adds up to not very much. Sure, some of these technologies are very impressive. They're very impressive, but they aren't much use to those particularly remote listeners in the Northern Territory. And unfortunately it's the same story where the ABC short-wave broadcasts to the Pacific are concerned, as these too were shut down in January. Look at the issues around diplomacy. Look at other entities filling that gap. Look at the charter obligations of the ABC to be the international broadcaster, the purveyor of Australian culture and context and language to our nearest neighbour. In discussing this issue, I was told of an Indian taxidriver whose English was exceptional. When asked why, he said, 'Because I listen to the ABC. So I know that it's footy season. I have some understanding of the Australian culture and context, and my English is getting better.' That is important for our nearest neighbour to the north, that being Indonesia.
The ABC abdicated its responsibility under its charter obligations, not just to rural and regional people in the Northern Territory itself but indeed across the Pacific. The same factors that shaped the short-wave decision in the Northern Territory—no consultation, no evidence, no solutions—were also evident in its decision to kill off the Pacific broadcasts. The ABC again claimed that just 300 people in Papua New Guinea listened to the ABC short wave. To back this, it told our inquiry into my bill on the ABC, earlier this year, that it drew this conclusion from a 2016 media research survey that showed 15,000 Radio Australia listeners were in PNG. Needless to say this survey, its fieldwork and methodology were not disclosed. They were claimed to the Senate, when we requested this information, to be commercially in confidence. Unfortunately for this part of the ABC story, it also stated in another answer to senators' questions that two per cent of PNG's 160,000 population used short wave to access the Radio Australia transmission—again contradictory. So 80 per cent of PNG residents actually use short wave and can access the ABC.
There is a strong flavour to all of this of saying whatever seems expedient on one hand and refusing to answer or disclose anything inconvenient on the other, to which I would say: ABC, you can't have it both ways. This contrary and frankly incredible approach to justifying the ABC's December 2016 board decision on short wave also extends to their account of the number of complaints they received. We were told, 'Look, it's okay, senators; we only received 18 complaints from the NT and a couple from Fiji,' but there were complaints from Laos, from India, from France, from the USA, from the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, from the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association—that's not just one person—from the truckies, from the tourist operations, from the fishermen. There were thousands of people that made complaints. The ABC admitted that they didn't even take into account as a complaint somebody who rang their ABC Alice Springs studio to complain. That wasn't a real complaint. I think the ABC have just been too cute by half in the way that they've dealt with this very, very serious issue and the way they have completely disregarded the Senate's attempts through estimates, two Senate inquiries and one hearing in Darwin to scrutinise this decision and this absolute failure under public expectation in the spend of public dollars and service delivery to those communities that need it most in the NT.
Where the Pacific is concerned, I think Senator Xenophon outlined quite nicely the Prime Minister of Vanuatu's concerns, particularly around natural disasters and how short-wave radio, and indeed the ABC's broadcasts, were of particular help during the disasters experienced by his country.
I think most Australians, based on past actions, irrespective of anything that may or may not appear in the charter, recognise the ABC as the emergency broadcaster. That came out clearly in our hearings. It's not unfair to say that most Australians expect to be able to rely on the ABC in an emergency. I was very, very concerned when we got the evidence that says, 'It's alright, senators; it's alright. You can get your weather information from the Bureau of Meteorology.' Unfortunately the ABC director who gave us that information failed to add the additional sentence that the BOM in the Northern Territory really only covers the coastal area. So, if you have a flood, a fire or some other emergency in inland Northern Territory, the BOM isn't going to be a place where you can access emergency service information.
Let's face the facts: the unilateral decision to cull short-wave services by the ABC board was a bad decision, made worse because it was based on very little evidence and even less consultation. It was backed up by a refusal to submit to the scrutiny of the Senate when questioned. As examples I've shared today show all too clearly, the ABC's story on its decision to cancel short-wave simply doesn't add up. It claims infinitesimal listener numbers but produces no evidence to substantiate it. It even admitted that it didn't even bother to talk to anyone who was invested in short-wave as an end user. That is all in the face of a mountain of anecdotal evidence that suggests that the short-wave listenership is not only far higher and more widespread than the ABC claims but also, very simply, that the ABC board got it wrong.
Whilst I am unable to support Senator Xenophon's bill and its substantive measures, I thank him for bringing this issue to the Senate. I too thank the Northern Territory senators who, when inquiring into my Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Advocacy) Bill, obtained a lot of substantial evidence around this decision. If my bill had become law, this would never have been able to occur. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Advocacy) Bill is a private senator's bill that is already before the Senate. It seeks to add to the ABC charters measures to include an explicit responsibility for the ABC on service provision to rural and regional Australians, a responsibility to deliver not just a culturally diverse service but a geographically diverse service. The bill would also add a requirement that there be two board members of the ABC who have a substantial investment and experience in rural and regional Australia. I believe that if we had had two people from rural and regional Australia sitting on the ABC board in December 2016 somebody would have asked, 'Have you talked to the NT cattlemen? Have you talked to the Indigenous communities? Has somebody spoken to how this will actually affect 96 per cent of the NT's landmass and people's ability to access public broadcast information?'
The third thing my bill seeks to do is to set up a rural and regional advisory council. I do not want to impinge on the independence—management, editorial or otherwise—of the ABC, but under principles of good governance the council would require the board to consult with rural and regional people and then publicly disclose what that advice was. The board could ignore the advice if there were other imperatives, but it would have to ask the question and see whether that advice from rural and regional Australia materially affected the board's decision on the matter.
I commend Senator Xenophon. In my recommendations there are solutions. The board should absolutely reconsider this decision, which is based on poor evidence.
I rise to speak as well on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Restoring Shortwave Radio) Bill 2017. I thank both Senator Xenophon's team for raising this issue and Senator McKenzie for her passion for those that live in the regional and remote regions. Labor has been deeply concerned about the impact of the cessation of short-wave radio in remote Australia and the Pacific. The ABC decided to cease, from 31 January 2017, the transmission of a short-wave radio service to the Northern Territory and certain Pacific nations. Labor has been campaigning on the ABC decision to cease the short-wave transmission since it was announced in mid-December. I have been particularly impressed by the advocacy shown by my colleague Senator McCarthy and my colleagues in the other place Mr Snowden and Mr Gosling. They've been as passionate on this issue over the same period because they really understand the impact of turning off short wave in remote parts of the Northern Territory.
There have been very real concerns expressed to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee about these decisions. We understand that the ABC decision was based on the fact that it measured relatively low audience levels for the service. Michael Mason, ABC's director of radio said:
While shortwave technology has served audiences well for many decades, it is now nearly a century old and serves a very limited audience. The ABC is seeking efficiencies and will instead service this audience through modern technology.
However, even though Labor expressed concern at the time, there was very little consultation prior to the announcement. I understand that only limited consultation took place with affected stakeholders, something that disappoints me and other members on this side of the chamber. When the ABC made the announcement in December 2016, several groups of Territorians, as we've heard, and stakeholder groups across the Top End expressed their disappointment. These included the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association and many others.
I was born in the remote north-west regional centre of Broome and have lived in the Top End most of my life. I can recall my dear dad, when the only installation in the house was a radio, turning to the short wave to listen to his favourite programs at the time. I recall Paul Robeson singing. I worked for many years with people on cattle stations who depended on information coming through the short-wave service. They relied on short wave for their news, for their market information on cattle prices and particularly for their access to up-to-date information when cyclones were brewing in the region. Even their children were schooled through short-wave services. Many remote Aboriginal communities were similarly placed.
Where we live there is a strong concern that there is currently a lack of alternative radio services in remote areas, particularly when we are dealing with emergency situations such as fire, flood or particularly cyclones. Some of the alternatives in place elsewhere such as digital technology are in short supply in rural and regional areas due to insufficient internet and mobile phone coverage—we've heard that already. I was visited in my office yesterday by a lady who came from a station near Riversleigh in north-west Queensland, just above Camooweal, and she pointed out that satellite technology in her district was unreliable during rainy times and when there's heavy smoke from bushfires in the air. The services available through the NBN and Sky Muster were not reliable, as was also pointed out to us by the National Farmers' Federation.
In areas where digital services are unreliable and spasmodic, short wave is something people have relied upon at least as a back-up when all else fails. That applies to fishermen in deep-sea areas, well off the coast, where other satellite coverage is spasmodic. It also applies to workers in Indigenous ranger programs caring for country in places away from the satellite dish. This was explained by Mark Crocombe from the Thamarrurr rangers at Wadeye on the ABC rural program in December 2016. He said:
Sure, it is expensive to keep the shortwave radio service going, but during cyclones, for the bush camps and people on boats, that is their only way of getting the weather reports.
It could be life threatening, if you are out and you don't know a cyclone is coming.
The VAST satellite dish is fixed to your house, we are working in the field, and when we are on the boats we are not in mobile phone range, so applications and VAST do not work in the bush.
Labor has been concerned that coalition budget cuts are putting pressure on the ABC to find efficiencies in ways that may undermine important service provisions. In their Senate report the Labor senators, particularly Senator Urquhart and Senator Chisholm, affirmed and advocated for the independence of the ABC. We understand the importance of safeguarding our national broadcaster from political interference. Labor notes that, in 2014, in breach of an explicit election promise, the Liberal National coalition imposed funding cuts on the ABC amounting to $355 million over a five-year period.
In their report the Labor senators noted that, in this context, the government commissioned the ABC and the SBS efficiency study to identify potential savings. The study identified the discontinuance of short-wave radio services as an area of potential savings amongst others. What we have been concerned about is that coalition budget cuts are putting pressure on the ABC to find efficiencies in ways that may undermine important service provision. We are of the view that the ABC decision to cease short-wave radio transmissions in the Northern Territory and Pacific is an example of the national broadcaster having to make trade-offs. It is being stretched to deliver on its mandate, and Northern Australia and our other remote communities have suffered as a result.
While Labor supports the concerns behind the bill, there are real concerns and questions as to whether this is the appropriate way to address those concerns. This bill does nothing to address the real issues of the ABC budget pressures. Those pressures have been brought about by the Liberal-National coalition funding cuts so that the ABC has been spread too thin. It has been asked to do too much with too little and been forced to make so-called efficiencies that undermine its abilities to serve both the spirit and the letter of the ABC Charter. When this impacts on our people in the bush—Aboriginal communities, pastoralists, tourist operators, fishermen—we are concerned. When these changes are made without consultation, we are concerned. When these changes are made without attention to the need to ensure later digital technologies are up to speed for the circumstances in isolated regions, we are very concerned, particularly if there are no maintenance capacities to look after those transmission areas.
The ABC said at the time:
The move is in line with the national broadcaster's commitment to dispense with outdated technology and to expand its digital content offerings including DAB+ digital radio, online and mobile services, together with FM services for international audiences.
The ABC also said:
… the ABC will assist with the transition to new technologies, providing information on how to access emergency services, as well as the use of modern and reliable devices such as emergency GPS beacons (EPIRBs) and affordable satellite telephones. Further information and specialist advice will be provided on how to access these services, including how to download catch-up radio programs and ABC podcasts to listen to whilst on the move.
In the Kimberley, you must recall the famous Cable Beach in Broome was where Australia connected to the overseas communication system. We now have the court in the old cable building that was part of that process. In the Kimberley, this transition had been made earlier than in the Northern Territory, but the promised transition to new technologies is slow to catch up. People have adjusted, but the process has been appalling.
It is absolutely fundamental that communications services in remote northern Australia should be maintained. The quality of life is at risk. Lives indeed could be at risk. That said, this bill in its present form cannot be supported. We will not apply pressure to the ABC. But the issue is: the ABC has turned off a lifeline without ensuring that the new technologies are available and fit for purpose, and they have not consulted anyone—or certainly have not consulted adequately. They have been forced into this predicament because of funding dictates by the coalition government, who have not cared for the bush or the people of the bush. This is the core of the issue and where Labor will continue and remain.
I rise to speak to this bill before us today, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Restoring Shortwave Radio) Bill 2017, put forward by Senator Xenophon. While I understand a lot of the concerns that have been raised—and I've spoken to people in my home state in South Australia about their very dear concerns in relation to not being able to access short-wave radio in remote areas, particularly in the north of my state—we believe that this bill is not the right mechanism to use to go about this. We believe that introducing a bill to direct our national broadcaster in this way does interfere with its independence.
However, we know that the ABC has been under immense funding pressure ever since this government came to power in 2013, despite the promises from the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, that there would be no cuts to the ABC. Indeed, in his first budget that promise was broken. Hundreds of millions of dollars were cut directly from our national broadcaster. We now hear, in relation to negotiations over media reform this week, that the government is prepared to open the door to even further cuts to the ABC and SBS at the whim and demand of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party.
The truth of the matter here is that the ABC continues to be used as a punching bag by those within the ranks of the government—and, indeed, by some on the crossbench—who simply don't like the fact that they can't control what the ABC does. We know that getting some bad press every now and again has rattled Senator Hanson and her party. I don't think we should set a precedent in this place that just because someone does a touch-up on a Four Corners show you slash and burn the ABC's budget. That is just not how a democracy should be functioning. Yet we know that this is exactly what Pauline Hanson and One Nation want to do. They've got the ABC and SBS in their sights. They have a grudge that they want action on. They have an axe to grind and they want that axe to fall squarely onto the ABC's budget.
That will mean that there will be more hard and difficult decisions to be made by ABC management in relation to what simply cannot continue to be funded. The example in the bill that's been put before us today by Senator Xenophon and his team is that of short-wave radio being closed down—without a suitable alternative being put in place—as a direct result of that pressure building year by year.
So what is going to be on the chopping block next? Well, I can tell you: it's going to be the ABC's online and streaming services; iview is what will start to be impacted here—the programs and the service delivery. And perhaps there will even be a paywall so that taxpayers will have to pay to access content that their taxes have already paid for. That's where this is going. That is exactly where this deal that One Nation wants to pull off with Malcolm Turnbull is going: a tax on the ABC, cuts to the ABC and less content access for everyday Australians.
Of course, at a time when there are budgetary constraints made on our public broadcaster—because of broken promises from the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, which were followed through by this Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull—there are hard decisions to be made, and it is the Australian community that loses out every single time. Rather than simply using the ABC as a punching bag, as Pauline Hanson likes to do, I think we need to see a bit more leadership from our government on this. They want to get their media reform package through this place so they should talk about what they're going to do to invest in the diversity of journalism in this country—to create more jobs for journalists in this country and to invest in the creation and the production of Australian content so that we have Australians employed to make Australian stories that Australians can access freely and in a timely way.
Of course, this government wants to hand $30 million over to Foxtel, with no strings attached and no questions asked, but they continue to take the axe to our national broadcaster. You can see the priorities in this place. You've got a grudge being held by Pauline Hanson, you've got a government that wants an excuse to slash and burn the budget of the broadcaster and the darling of the ABC, Malcolm Turnbull, is shrinking over there in the shadows. He is unable to shake off the broken promise from Tony Abbott when he cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the ABC's budget, despite promising the Australian people before the 2013 election that he wouldn't. We all know what happens when Tony Abbott says he's going to do something; the exact opposite seems to occur. He's never been very good at holding a promise, and now we see Pauline Hanson doing dirty deals to finish the job for him.
I rise to speak against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Restoring Shortwave Radio) Bill 2017 this morning. Our public service broadcasters play important roles in the social construction of our communities, especially in rural and regional Australia. However, in today's modern media environment—an environment dominated by online digital platforms that allow content to be accessed by viewers not only all over Australia but all over the world—has placed increasing economic pressures on our rural and regional broadcasters. The new digital media environment means greater consideration must be given to the economic impact of keeping services like the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's short-wave transmission broadcasts over the ability to provide quality local content and the provision of information services to regional and remote communities.
According to a 2015 report by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, 100 per cent of Australian homes can access digital terrestrial broadcasts; 30 per cent of all Australian homes now have a smart TV—a TV they can access the internet with directly; and 27 per cent have accessed the internet via a smart TV. It also went on to say that 23 per cent of Australians now have a complex home network that supports multiple devices and connection boxes, and that the number of connected devices is expected to double from 116 million to 220 million by 2019. It also went on to say that 70 per cent of Australians use a mobile phone to access the internet for personal use and 58 per cent of 18- to 30-year-old professionals say that their smart phones are the first thing they look at in the morning.
The role of the television has shifted from being a more collective viewing experience based on a specific time, like the news at 6 pm, and place, such as the living room, to one that now has an individual component of watching what you want when and where you want to watch it. Two out of three commercial broadcasters now provide streamed versions of their services, which are available in both metro and regional areas. In addition, both the ABC and SBS have streamed services and apps, which means regional viewers receive the same amount of content as their metro counterparts due to existing affiliation agreements. The increase of other streaming services like Netflix or Spotify is rapidly impacting on audience viewing and listening behaviours. The ABC's 2015 annual report, aptly entitled All about audiences, documents that digital technologies, particularly mobile devices, are used to access more news than ever before. This is changing the Australian media landscape.
In these rapidly changing times, it's imperative to consider the crucial role performed by the ABC in the production and dissemination of local news in Australia's rural and regional communities. More than one-third of the ABC's budget goes towards content, transmission and infrastructure costs servicing rural and regional audiences. The ABC operates 56 offices and bureaus around the country, and its network includes more than 600 AM and FM radio transmitters. The ABC remains a pioneer in transitioning to digital services, especially in engaging regional audiences online through ABC Open.
On 10 January 2010, the Australian government announced a new satellite service to deliver digital television and radio channels to Australian viewers who reside in remote and rural areas across our country. Viewer Access Satellite Television, or VAST, provides digital television and radio services to viewers in remote areas of Australia, as well as viewers who are unable to receive digital TV through their normal antennae because of issues relating to local interference, terrain or distance from the transmitter in their area. The VAST service has channels for the ABC, the SBS and the Australian commercial television networks. Access to the commercial television services on VAST is governed by broadcast licence conditions, and each application is assessed against those criteria. The ABC and SBS services are available to all viewers with a VAST decoder. Initially, the service was only available to viewers in and around Mildura, Victoria, to coincide with Australia's first analog television switch-off. On 15 December 2010, the service was made available to viewers in the existing remote central and eastern Australia and Mount Isa licence areas, and in April 2011 the western VAST service began for regional and remote Western Australian viewers in my home state.
While the ABC announced its decision to cease short-wave radio broadcasting on 6 December last year, it is important to note that the decision to end short-wave broadcasting was taken by the ABC board, who have legislated operational independence to make these decisions. This decision is in no way related to government funding, which was confirmed for the next three years in the last budget. The government has, however, conveyed to the ABC the community concern about its handling of this significant issue, particularly relating to the limited consultation and notice period that was given to consumers. The ABC has advised that the cost of maintaining the short wave service was considered disproportionate to its use as a broadcast technology.
Currently there are only three short-wave transmission towers in Australia. All are located in the Northern Territory, and each has a broadcast radius of 200 kilometres. The Northern Territory's short-wave service is the last domestic service of this type. The ABC's short-wave services in the other states and territories were closed some time ago, and there are now no similar ABC services in Queensland or Western Australia, which face similar issues of distance and remoteness. The ABC has also assured the government that the cessation of its short-wave service will not leave those in the remote regions of the NT without access to emergency information.
The VAST satellite service is used across other large parts of the remote Australian outback where there are no short-wave broadcasts, such as in parts of the Northern Territory and all of Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. Many remote workers and travellers already make use of the VAST satellite service when stationary to access all ABC radio and TV in digital quality.
The National Broadband Network satellite services, Sky Muster, will also assist those in remote Australia by providing access to all ABC online and digital content. Sky Muster provides broadband connectivity to regional and remote Australia, effectively covering all of mainland Australia. For those outside terrestrial radio coverage who are mobile or do not have access to VAST, there is the dedicated Bureau of Meteorology high-frequency transmission, which provides hourly weather updates and alerts on its short-wave band. In addition, the Northern Territory Police and emergency services operate short-wave services for two-way communication in case of emergency. The ABC will also donate a VAST satellite system unit to all Royal Flying Doctor Service bases and four-wheel-drive radio club bases in the affected region, allowing these organisations to rebroadcast emergency or warning messages.
In terms of the ABC's international short-wave service, Radio Australia will continue to be available internationally via satellite and online streaming and through a network of FM terrestrial transmitters. The ABC has advised that international short-wave services currently transmit only to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The ABC previously maintained short-wave services to the Middle East, India, China, Indonesia and the Asia-Pacific. However, these services have already been terminated in recent years as audiences have made the transition to newer radio technologies, including FM transmissions and online streaming services. Other public broadcasters including the BBC, Radio-Canada and Radio Netherlands have already closed or substantially reduced their international short-wave services in recent years.
While the ABC acknowledges that a small audience living and working in the Northern Territory favour short-wave radio when accessing ABC services, to assist this small audience following the closure of short-wave services on 31 January, the ABC has offered comprehensive advice on how to best access emergency information, ABC news and entertainment. To date, this information program has included public notices and comprehensive statements in local media; regular broadcasts on ABC local radio, including on short wave; and online articles and advice informing audiences of the decision and how they can continue to access ABC services. The expansion of this service included extra resources from the ABC in the form of an ongoing public information campaign in local media and an easy-to-access information page on ABC local radio websites for the Northern Territory, as well as the About the ABC website, the ABC Local Radio Facebook page and other social media platforms. The ongoing ABC reception advice line, accessible by phone and email, continues to offer dedicated audience assistance with broadcast alternatives and technology advice. In addition, the ABC has established email and phone registration for information packs on broadcast technology alternatives, mailed to home addresses; information on one-on-one phone briefings or tuition delivered through reception advice lines; and the development of how-to videos, accessible online and through social media, detailing how to download and access podcasts and catch-up radio programming.
Australia is using an upgraded version of the digital audio broadcasting digital radio standard known as DAB+ to broadcast digital radio. DAB+ uses a VHF band III spectrum, which is the same spectrum currently used by digital television services. Digital radio services from commercial radio broadcasters and national broadcasters have been operating in the metropolitan licence areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth since 1 July 2009. Designated community radio services also began in these areas in April 2011.
In 2015, following the publication of Digital radio report, the government asked that ACMA facilitate the rollout of digital radio in regional areas where licensees make the commercial decision to offer the service. As recommended in that report, a Digital Radio Planning Committee for Regional Australia, chaired by ACMA, was established in the third quarter of 2015 to work with industry to plan digital radio in regional Australia. The committee was tasked with planning the rollout of digital radio in regional areas where industry indicates it is economically feasible to do so, starting with the permanent licensing of Canberra and Darwin trial service areas. The committee comprised industry representatives from peak bodies, Commercial Radio Australia and the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia, as well as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the SBS, the Department of Communications and the Arts, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and, of course, ACMA.
The department of communications simultaneously conducted two statutory reviews into digital radio services in Australia in accordance with its regulatory obligations—in particular, section 215B of the Broadcasting Services Act and section 313B of the Radiocommunications Act 1992.
The department of communications' Digital radio report was released in July 2015 and made a number of recommendations to government, including: not setting a timetable for analogue radio switch-off; giving the ACMA responsibility for determining where and when digital radio services can commence; encouraging industry to work with ACMA to establish a digital radio planning committee; not reintroducing the moratorium on the ACMA issuing digital-only commercial radio licences in mainland state capital cities; removing provisions requiring a six-year moratorium on additional radio services; considering whether to allow broadcasters to choose the mode in which they deliver their radio services; and, importantly, considering minor amendments to the current digital radio regulatory regime to provide a similar, more flexible process for planning and licensing of digital radio in regional Australia with a view to permanent services being licensed in Canberra and Darwin as a priority.
There can be no doubt that for some people across regional Australia, and in particular the far north of Australia, the ABC's decision in regard to the short-wave transmission has been an important one. Certainly, I have had representations from people across the Kimberley, most particularly those people near the border between the Kimberley and the Northern Territory who have been concerned about this latest decision by the ABC. But, unfortunately, the decision by the ABC is an important one that can be defended. The ABC has done its best, after some pressure from the government, to make sure consumers are aware of the need for change and the need for reform. As is true across the media landscape, we can't escape the fact that technologies change. A part of that technological change is to bring additional services and better-quality content to people, and this particular decision, I think, is the right one.
I rise to speak to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Restoring Shortwave Radio) Bill 2017 and I thank the Senator Nick Xenophon and his team for raising what is an incredibly important issue.
I would like to let the Senate know that having no short-wave radio in the Northern Territory means that when people turn their radio on now in the remote regions of the Northern Territory and northern Australia, they hear nothing but static. The fishers out their boats, the rangers out on country, the farmers and cattle families out there on their stations hear nothing. They hear nothing. Where once communication was vibrant, where once communication meant something to those who were completely isolated, now it is completely gone. They are isolated. They are not feeling linked to the rest of this country. They are not feeling linked to whatever news, current affairs, weather and updates are happening in their region. They are not linked to any of that communication. It is absolutely dire, the absence of this service, for regional Australians.
The ABC board visited the Northern Territory and Central Australia recently and heard first-hand from people in the region. They didn't have to hear from politicians; they heard from the very listeners themselves. These weren't made up stories by senators in this chamber or members in the other chamber; these were very real human stories. The ABC board and its members who went to Alice Springs were able to hear firsthand the deep impact, the quite profound impact, that the silencing of short wave has had on their lives in the eight months since it was taken off air.
I have never seen an issue so long-lasting. This is not just a newspaper article, not just a radio news item but a long-lasting, very human issue that has gone on for eight months. It has gone on way too long. The ABC's managing director was at Garma on Yolngu country, welcomed wholeheartedly by the Yolngu people. It was an opportunity for her and for those who were with her to get a deeper insight into the isolation of our country—the remoteness, the length of time it takes for people to travel, the absence of full communication, the realisation that mobiles do not happen in every square corner of this country and the realisation that you can't just get on your mobile phone in the middle of Arnhem Land and try and download an app that brings you to the ABC.
Here in Canberra we can. I love the fact that I can listen to all the different radio stations and even listen to Darwin while I am down here in Canberra. We know that our southern cities and our brothers and sisters in the southern parts of this country have enormous access. The people in the north do not.
The people in the north suffer from many different geographical issues. Now, they absolutely suffer at the complete silence of any communication. We have heard from previous speakers here today about the VAST network. We know that a cattleman who is out mustering cannot put the VAST satellite on his horse. We know that the people in the fishing industry cannot put it on their boats. We know that the rangers who are travelling out in their four-wheel drives cannot have it in their cars. We know the truckies cannot put it on their trucks.
The ABC managing director faced Senate estimates this year. I asked her: with all this information that you have now received of how much need there is out there for this service, will you now reconsider your decision? Will you now reconsider your board's decision? Yes, while there have been horrific cuts to the ABC over the past few years and while there have been extensive cuts in different quarters for different reasons, this decision still came down to the ABC board. We are all placed at different times in life to make choices. We are placed in positions that we may not want to be placed in, but we try to make informed decisions as a result of being placed in those positions. This was not an informed decision by the ABC board.
I urge the ABC board, with the new members who have since come on that board—it is wonderful to see the new members who have come on, including Georgie Somerset, a woman of enormous significance in terms of her understanding of regional issues. It is wonderful to have board members there who know what we are talking about and who know this is not just a fantasy of senators and members of the House who try to speak on behalf of their constituencies.
These are very real, very human issues about the lack of communication for our regional Australians. We know of the concerns internationally. We know the concerns of Vanuatu and all the Pacific islands. I have to say that my focus as a senator for the Northern Territory is for the people of the Northern Territory and northern Australia. We have to fix it here in our country first. The ABC can fix this. There are board members there who can revisit this decision. There is a managing director now who has had an opportunity to visit places in the Northern Territory and hear the people for herself. It is not too late. It is never too late to revisit a mistake.
The loss of the ABC's short-wave service in remote Australia and the Pacific region is being sorely felt. I certainly support the need for the ABC to maintain and build its regional coverage and I believe there are options for doing this, not the least of which is ensuring adequate funding. What steps are being taken to pursue, to lobby for or to advocate for the funding that is so desperately needed in these regions, especially in relation to short wave? What consultation has taken place within your own organisation? You have the advisory council. You have the Bonner Committee of respected Indigenous staff members who know firsthand of what I speak about in relation to the concerns of Indigenous communities. Have you spoken to them? Have they been given an opportunity to express to you, the board of the ABC, the importance of short wave and reconnecting a most valued and most loved service to our country?
Over the past many months, we've been listening to a lot of the concerns by people across the country in the Senate estimates and the inquiry by the Senate and now reading the letters that are still being written to my office, asking for this service to be put back on. It is a transmission service that provides a vital service for Territorians living in remote areas. It's how they access their news, entertainment and information. The decision to stop this was absolutely premature.
The ABC local radio service often provides the only reliable source of information and entertainment to remote communities, to pastoral stations and to people who otherwise work remotely and are mobile. In times of natural disaster—and let me tell you, the cyclone season, the wet season, is six months of the year for the Northern Territory, the Far North Queensland and the Kimberley region—having access to that service can quite literally mean the difference between life and death. Territorians and others who visit and work in remote regions, as well as those who rely on short-wave services in the Pacific region, have expressed their concern and anger at the decision to cut this service.
The recent Senate inquiry into the ABC's rural and regional advocacy bill, which looks at the short-wave issue—and I do commend Senator McKenzie for her push in this space—received more than 57 submissions, the majority objecting to the cessation of short-wave services.
I'd like to share some of what people who live and work in remote areas told me about the ABC's short-wave service and what it meant for their daily lives. Dave and Mary Hewitt said:
The ABC says we'll still be able to tune in via FM radio, online streaming or the radio APP "that gives much better sound quality" - none of this is available further than about 40km from a transmitter, and it shows again how little the ABC bosses know about the bush. My wife and I often travel west of Uluru in my work with maintenance in the Purple House dialysis clinics and about half an hour from Uluru we loose FM reception. We can then tune into Short Wave on our Codan HF radio. We often camp between communities and it is always comforting to hear weather forecasts early in the morning.
Many older travellers also have these Codan or Barrett radios and often in winter at Stuart Highway rest areas we see groups of them gathered around a radio listening to an AFL football game.
We've been in the middle of the Great Sandy Desert with teams of bird watchers and on a Sunday morning we listen to Ian McNamara's 'Australia All Over' program from the Alice Springs, Tennant Creek or Katherine transmitters. Again, the weather information on the radio is very valuable. There is nothing else out there that can provide this kind of service.
We know of people in remote Aboriginal communities who do not have a local FM service or at best it is very unreliable, road maintenance crews and tour operators to whom the Short Wave reception is absolutely vital. It is very reliable and we have never known the HF transmitters to fail. If we are in a location where reception is not good from Alice Springs, we can tune into Tennant Creek.
That is just one of thousands of letters that have been written and continue to be written to members of parliament about the need to restore this most valued and loved service. The bottom line here is that if we really care about the ABC as a parliament as well and its regional and remote viewers and listeners, then it does need to be funded properly to deliver these services that we desperately need.
Debate interrupted.
I present the ninth report of 2017 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 9 OF 2017
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 16 August 2017 at 7.20 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 October 2017 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 2 and 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 October 2017 (see appendices 4 and 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(d) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 6 and 7 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017
Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017
Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017
5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement:
(David Bushby)
Chair
17 August 2017
APPENDIX 1
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
This Bill deals with Australia's efforts to combat money laundering and terrorism financing. Given the importance and complexity of these matters, it would be prudent to have this Bill considered by Committee to:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Attorney-General's Department, AUSTRAC, CDPP, the Australian Federal Police, Law Council of Australia, State and Territory Law Associations (e.g. Law Institute of Victoria), State and Territory Bar Associations, major banks, Australian Bankers' Association, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Uniting Church, Transparency International Australia, State and Territory police forces.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee.
Possible reporting date:
16 October 2017
Senator Anne Urquhart
APPENDIX 2
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Employment and Education Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee.
Possible reporting date:
13 November 2017
Senator Anne Urquhart
APPENDIX 3
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To provide Senators with an opportunity for further consideration of the scope of the new tests in the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Registered Organisations, other employee or employer groups, academics, peak bodies affected by the conduct of registered organisations.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Employment and Education Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee.
Possible reporting date:
01 September 2017
Senator Mitch Fifield
APPENDIX 4
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
Tuesday 17 October 2017
Senator Anne Urquhart
APPENDIX 5
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
This bill makes significant changes to migration, Visa and work arrangements for overseas workers in Australia.:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Council of Trade Unions
Individual unions across a range of industries
Employer groups including the National Farmers Federation and Australian Industry Group
Migration Institute of Australia
Law Council of Australia
The Salvation Army
Justice and International Mission Unit, Uniting Church in Australia
JobWatch Inc.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
19 October 2017
Senator Rachel Siewert
APPENDIX 6
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To allow for proper scrutiny of the Bill and consultation with the communities involved
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
13 November 2017
Senator Anne Urquhart
APPENDIX 7
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impacts of the bill on recipients
Possible submissions or evidence from:
ACOSS, National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, Professor Jon Altman, Australian Human Rights Commission, National Social Security Rights Network
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
17 October 2017
Senator Rachel Siewert
I move:
That the report be adopted.
I move the following amendment:
At the end of the motion, add "and in respect of:
(a) the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill 2017 and 10 related bills, the bills be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 October 2017; and
(b) the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report by 9 October 2017".
I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government's amendment, but I also would like to flag that we will be moving a subsequent amendment to it and seek the Senate support for that.
The question is that Senator Fifield's amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add "and in respect of Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report by 13 November 2017".
The opposition believes this is a reasonable time frame, considering the workload that is in front of the community affairs committee and that we've just asked them to deal with the Medicare levy amendment bill by October. We believe November is realistic to deal with a significant piece of legislation like this.
I indicate the Greens will be supporting this amendment. This is a significant piece of legislation, bringing in significant changes. As Senator Gallagher has just articulated, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, of which I am deputy chair, and the Community Affairs References Committee have a very significant workload, which has just been added to with the referral of the Medicare NDIS bills, whose referral I do support, to be clear.
We're on to Economics.
Sorry, to the Economics Legislation Committee. I beg your pardon. That's correct. It does already have a significant workload. I will say that many of us who are working on the Medicare levy and NDIS committee are also members of the community affairs committee. There will be a workload regardless of which committee it goes to. I think it's fair enough, given the significance of the bills and the workload that we all have already, that this reporting date be accepted.
I move the following amendment to Senator Gallagher's proposed amendment:
"13 November 2017", substitute "16 October 2017".
The government sees this as a very important piece of legislation. We recognise the desire of the Senate to have this referred to a committee for inquiry, but we seek, obviously, a shorter time frame in which that work can happen. I think we all now recognise that the Medicare levy bill is going to the Economics Legislation Committee, not the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which has been acknowledged by Senator Siewert.
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Fifield to the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher to change the reporting date be agreed to.
The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question is that the Selection of Bills Committee motion as moved by Senator Bushby, as amended, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That—
(a) the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 pm today:
No. 5 Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017
No. 6 Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017
Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017
Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business order of the day no. 43 (Communications Legislation Amendment (Executive Remuneration) Bill 2017);
(b) general business notice of motion no. 417 standing in the name of the Leader of Pauline Hanson's One Nation (Senator Hanson) relating to violent extremism; and
(c) orders of the day relating to documents.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Payne for today, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
by leave—On behalf of the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Macdonald, I move:
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today.
Question agreed to.
Does any senator wish to have the question put on any proposal? There being none, we will move on.
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2017:
The waste and recycling industry in Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) the quantity of solid waste generated and the rate of diversion of solid waste for recycling;
(b) the accreditation and management of landfills;
(c) the extent of illegal landfilling;
(d) the role of landfill levies in determining the end destination of material, including the hypothecation of collected levies for enforcement and waste diversion purposes;
(e) the role of different incentives and collection methods in determining the quality and quantity of material collected for recycling;
(f) the destination of material collected for recycling, including the extent of material reprocessing and the stockpiling of collected material;
(g) the current economic conditions in the industry, including the market for material collected for recycling;
(h) the transportation of solid waste across state boundaries;
(i) the role of the Australian Government in providing a coherent, efficient and environmentally responsible approach to solid waste management, including by facilitating a federal approach; and
(j) any other related matters.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government notes the ongoing workload of committees and committee secretariats and expresses its concern at additional references.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 December 2017:
The availability and accessibility of diagnostic imaging equipment around Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) geographic and other disparities in access to diagnostic imaging equipment;
(b) arrangements for Commonwealth subsidy of diagnostic imaging equipment and services;
(c) out-of-pocket costs for services that are not subsidised by the Commonwealth and the impact of these on patients; and
(d) the respective roles of the Commonwealth, states and other funders in ensuring access to diagnostic imaging services.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government is committed to ensuring affordable access to diagnostic imaging for all Australians. By contrast, every single diagnostic-imaging item was frozen throughout Labor's entire time in government. So while we are concerned about the workload of committees and committee secretariats, we will support this particular reference. At the last election, Labor did not budget for any indexation in diagnostic imaging, nor did this year's budget reply contain any funding for re-indexation. On budget night the coalition expressly re-indexed diagnostic imaging at a cost of nearly $700 million over 10 years. This is in addition to the coalition's commitment to maintain the diagnostic-imaging bulk-billing incentives at a cost of $477 million over the forward estimates. Labor is still refusing to match our re-indexation of CT, mammography, fluoroscopy and interventional procedures.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations, be established to inquire into and report, on 15 November 2017, on the following matters:
(a) the level of influence that political donations exert over the public policy decisions of political parties, Members of Parliament and Government administration;
(b) the motivations and reasons why entities give donations to political parties and political candidates;
(c) the use of shell companies, trusts and other vehicles to obscure the original source of political donations;
(d) how to improve the integrity of political decision-making through our political donations regime and the public funding of elections;
(e) any other related matters
(2) That the committee consist of seven senators, two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens and two nominated by minority groups and independent senators.
(3) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Leader of the Australian Greens or any minority party or independent senator;
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(4) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(5) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.
(6) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(7) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.
(8) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(9) That the committee, and any subcommittee, have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.
(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government will not be supporting this motion as it duplicates the work already underway by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Following the 2016 election, the Special Minister of State referred a range of issues to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The inquiry's wide-ranging terms of reference include donations to political parties and other political entities. The government looks forward to receiving the JSCEM's report on these matters.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The opposition will be supporting this motion. In doing so, we do need to pay regard to the work of the members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, who have put in significant work on the issue of political donations, amongst many other issues. The issue of political donations has been at the forefront of Labor's policy agenda and we have legislation before the parliament that seeks to improve transparency and accountability regarding donations. This select committee, although focused on an issue of JSCEM, is targeted at political donations, an issue of utmost importance for the Australian community and one that does deserve specific focus.
The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Di Natale, be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of senators Xenophon, Hinch, Lambie and Hanson, move:
(1) That the Senate notes that the Prime Minister has written to the Opposition Leader to express concerns that there may be more senators, and members of the House of Representatives, who are ineligible under Section 44 of the Constitution.
(2) That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 September 2017:
(a) the eligibility of senators in the 45th Parliament under Section 44 of the Constitution in so far as it relates to being 'a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power';
(b) the legal liability of senators who know, or have grounds to suspect, that they are ineligible for office but do not come forward with that information, and whether they are defrauding the Commonwealth; and
(c) any other related matters.
(3) For the purposes of carrying out the inquiry, the committee must, as soon as practicable, with the approval of the President, appoint an independent auditor, or auditors, with expertise in migration, citizenship and constitutional law to assist the committee.
(4) The independent auditor or auditors will be able to request the committee to use its powers to order the production of documents from senators and order them to appear as witnesses and answer questions.
(5) On behalf of the committee, the independent auditor or auditors may present to representatives of foreign governments in Australia and seek information.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government's position has not changed on this issue. We oppose the motion. The calling into question of a senator's eligibility to sit in this place is a very serious step, and that step should be taken only in cases where there's a clear case to answer. The motion seeks to turn this long-accepted principle on its head, effectively calling into question every senator's position until he or she is able to provide proof. That would constitute a wrongheaded reversal of the onus of proof, especially given the undoubted public interest in certainty as to the composition of parliament. Further, another referral would only add to the existing workloads of Senate committees and the committee secretariats in particular.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Foreign Minister has denied Witness K, a former public servant and Australian citizen, an Australian passport,
(ii) the denial was made on the advice of the Australian Security Intelligence Service (ASIS), a competent authority for the purpose of the Australian Passports Act 2005,
(iii) denying an Australian citizen a passport is a serious restriction of liberty, and must not be done lightly,
(iv) during Budget estimates, questions were put to the Attorney-General (representing the Foreign Minister) as to the appropriateness of ASIS being relied upon as a competent authority in the circumstances of the case – the Attorney-General took the question on notice,
(v) after consideration, the Government has advised that the questions put to the Attorney-General are properly questions for ASIS,
(vi) although there is no constraint prohibiting ASIS from appearing at estimates hearings, they do not normally do so, and
(vii) the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee has declined to invite ASIS to appear at the October 2017 supplementary Budget estimates hearings; and
(b) orders that the Australian Security Intelligence Service appear before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee at the October 2017 supplementary Budget estimates hearings.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
In addition to the Minister for Foreign Affairs' day-to-day accountability for the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, parliamentary oversight of ASIS is conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security under the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The joint committee reviews ASIS's administration and expenditure, as well as any matters referred to it by the responsible minister or through a resolution of either house of parliament. ASIS does not separately appear before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade legislation committee. This reflects the joint committee's role, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's investigation and review powers, and practical security related restrictions. The 2017 Independent Intelligence Review considered oversight arrangements and found they did not require fundamental change.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
This relates to a fundamental issue that Witness K, a former ASIS officer, has been denied his ability to travel out of the country, notwithstanding that the reason for the denial related to a dispute between Australia and East Timor which now appears, if not on the verge of resolving, to have an alternative path to dispute resolution. I have asked questions in the estimates process in respect of this. I cannot get satisfactory answers, because ASIS is the responsible body. I note that the Director-General of ASIO has no issues with Witness K having a passport. This really is a very significant scandal in the fact that a citizen of this country has been denied the ability to travel overseas.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) concerning reports that over two dozen members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will take part in the annual Ulchi-Freedom Guardian war games alongside American and South Korean troops later this month,
(ii) that the war games will take place against a backdrop of escalating tensions between the United States and North Korea, and a heightened risk of miscalculation leading to war,
(iii) that North Korea routinely denounces the war games as preparation for an invasion, and in 2016 conducted a nuclear test following the exercises, and
(iv) that the participation of ADF personnel in the Ulchi-Freedom Guardian war games will insert Australia into a potentially very dangerous conflict between unpredictable nuclear states; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) immediately withdraw Australian participation in the Ulchi-Freedom Guardian war games, and
(ii) directly urge United States President, Donald Trump, to de-escalate tensions, rather than continue to ratchet them up.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Australia is committed to the long-term peace and stability in our region. We work closely with our partners and allies to achieve this. Australia supports the sovereign right of South Korea to conduct military exercises inside the terms of the 1953 armistice agreement and to defend itself from aggression. Since the mid-1970s, the annual exercise Ulchi-Freedom Guardian has been focused on the defence of South Korea.
Australia is an active member of United Nations Command, which coordinates multinational forces in South Korea and has participated annually in Ulchi-Freedom Guardian since 2010. This year, 25 Australians will participate in this year's command post exercise, a desktop-based exercise featuring computer simulation. Australia will continue to work closely with our friends and allies for peace.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I make this statement to try and convince the Senate to support this motion. What person in their right mind would think that now is a good time to conduct a military exercise with US military forces in the Korean Peninsula?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator Whish-Wilson, resume your seat, please. The senator has the right to be heard in silence. I would ask all senators to respect Senator Whish-Wilson as he speaks.
The last year this exercise was conducted, the madman in Pyongyang exploded an atomic bomb—tested an atomic bomb—as a signal to the US that they didn't appreciate this. Now is a very, very sensitive time. We have seen a clear escalation of tensions. We have seen provocation after provocation in North Korea. We saw some welcome de-escalation in this debate in the last 24 hours, where both sides have dialled back their rhetoric. Why are we going ahead and participating in a military exercise in North Korea at a time when every expert recognises that this is a very dangerous and volatile situation?
Question negatived.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) condemns the move by the City of Yarra Council to change the way it marks Australia Day;
(b) endorses the remarks by the Prime Minister that this attack on Australia Day by the City of Yarra is a repudiation of the values of 'freedom, a fair go, mateship and diversity';
(c) stands resolute in its view that Australia Day is a day that all Australians come together as a nation, to celebrate the values that make Australia great and that make people proud of Australian citizenship;
(d) notes that all Australian states and territories have celebrated Australia Day on 26 January since 1935; and
(e) calls on the Australian Government to strip the City of Yarra Council of its authorisation to conduct citizenship ceremonies.
I seek leave to move an amendment which has been circulated in my name to Senator Smith's motion.
Leave not granted.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Labor will not be supporting this motion, and we are disappointed that leave wasn't given for our amendment. The Senate has more important issues to debate than the machinations of local councils: issues like health, education, jobs or, indeed, national security. There is no doubt that Australia Day is an important national day. It is the source of great celebration for many Australians, but we cannot shy away from the fact that, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, 26 January can speak of dispossession and sorrow. Labor does not support changing the date of Australia Day. Reconciliation is more about changing hearts and minds than it is about moving public holidays. We do support working towards building a more reconciled nation, a nation where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians are united. These are the things that are worth working towards.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Greens will not be supporting this motion. The Greens do proudly stand with Aboriginal people who are calling for a change to the date of Australia Day. Aboriginal people see 26 January as Invasion Day. We will never be a truly reconciled nation while we put Australia Day on the date that they see as the day of dispossession and invasion. We stand proudly here today saying we want Australia Day to be on a day that is not 26 January, and where we collectively decide on a date where we can celebrate this wonderful country, where we are not once again marginalising and discriminating against the first nations of this place. We stand proudly to say, 'Change the date'.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Let me be very, very clear: the Liberal-National government will never ever change the date of Australia Day. It is a day to bring all Australians together—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator McGrath, resume your seat. Order! Senator McGrath has the right to be heard in silence, and I would ask all senators to respect that right. Order!
It is a day to be proud, not a day to be ashamed. It is a day that brings all Australians together. That is what is good about being Australian. The City of Yarra council should—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator McGrath, resume your seat. Senators, I have asked that you listen in respectful silence. Order!
The City of Yarra council should focus on roads, rates and rubbish, rather than this politically-correct mumbo jumbo, bat-poop-crazy stuff masquerading as social engineering. We will never change the date of Australia Day. We are proud to be Australian.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Order!
I seek the Senate's leave for Senator McGrath to have another five minutes!
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
In the United States of America, 4 July is celebrated as Independence Day. There are a lot of American Indians who would be upset about that. They also celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and everybody in the United States can celebrate that. I will support the government on Australia Day being kept on 26 January. But I also think that we should be looking quite seriously at having another day in this great country of ours and have Mabo day where we can all celebrate the Indigenous people who have been here for 60,000 years.
I seek leave to make a short statement for one minute—or five minutes as the case may be.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The Australian Conservatives unequivocally support Australia Day remaining where it is. I do want to put it on the record that when Senator McGrath gave his impassioned plea for the patriots of Australia in defence of our traditions, Senator Hanson-Young called him a disgrace. I do not think that there is anything disgraceful about sticking up for Australia. In fact, if there were more patriots in this place, instead of people who are happy to undermine and sell out our institutions, our country would be much better off.
So I support you, Senator McGrath. I condemn Senator Hanson-Young for her condemnation of people sticking up for Australia Day. If we are not prepared to defend our values, our principles and our traditions in this country, we will replace them with anything else—and that's okay for the internationalists over there who want to have UN Day instead of Australia Day, but it's not okay for those people who recognise that Australia was formed. We can recognise our Indigenous heritage—we can recognise a whole range of things—but we need to stand up and support our way of life, our culture and values.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave not granted.
The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Smith, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Labor will be supporting this Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017. Schedule 1 amends the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 to improve the integrity of the wine equalisation tax producer rebate. Labor supports the WET integrity measures. Labor wants to give producers certainty about the wine equalisation tax regime. The WET producer rebate, as it currently stands, has distorted production in the wine industry, contributing to the increased supply of wine and wine grapes and preventing necessary adjustments that would improve the long-term strength of the industry.
The rebate was introduced in 2004 and currently provides up to $500,000 in tax relief to producers of wine. The intent of the policy was to benefit small wine producers in rural and regional Australia. As my colleagues, the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, and the shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, Joel Fitzgibbon, noted in 2015, the intent of the policy is not being met, and there is consensus from the government, the opposition and the industry itself on the need for change. It took some time for the legislation to make its way to parliament, despite clear signals from the opposition that we would engage with the government on the issue and support sensible proposals.
Reform of the WET producer rebate would better target the rebate and improve its integrity. It would also ensure consistency with the original policy intent of benefiting small wine producers who are making a genuine investment in the wine industry, many of whom are in rural and regional Australia. If left in its current form, the WET producer rebate will continue to create a perverse incentive for businesses to structure themselves so as to maximise rebate claims. The result would be excess wine production, exacerbating challenging market conditions for growers.
The measures in this package are welcome and supported by many stakeholders, including most industry participants. As the Winemakers' Federation of Australia noted:
Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide income tax relief to superannuation funds who are transferring the account balances of their members as they transition to the MySuper rules. Labor was proud to introduce the MySuper reforms, which brought in new low-cost superannuation products with a simple set of features to allow members to more easily compare between products and to ensure that members do not pay for any features that they do not need or use. Superannuation funds have been able to provide MySuper products since 1 July 2013.
As part of the transition to the new rules, funds were required to transfer the existing balances of their default members to MySuper-compliant products by 1 July 2017. When superannuation funds are transferring these balances and the assets which support these balances, tax liabilities could arise on the transfer. This tax payable would reduce the balance of the member. Tax relief is currently available for those superannuation funds that transfer their default members to a different fund. However, this tax relief has not been available where the member transfers to a MySuper product with their existing superannuation provider. This legislation will extend the tax relief, providing an asset rollover for mandatory transfer of balances and assets to MySuper products within the same superannuation fund. Labor supports this change as it will make sure that members' balances are not negatively impacted by tax liabilities when their balances are removed. It will also ensure equity between those members who moved to a new fund provider and those who take up new products with their existing provider.
Labor supports the bill.
Very briefly, I understand the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017 is a non-controversial bill, but I just want to make a couple of brief statements and get on record that the Greens have been very involved in the process over the last couple of years of looking at the wine equalisation tax. I sat on the Senate references inquiry that looked at this and went all around the country and heard from wine producers. I myself have previously been a wine producer, having a small vineyard. I've manned my own cellar door and pruned my own grapes. I understand that this WET has been a very difficult tax, especially for a lot of smaller vineyards. It's been very complex, it's been rorted by a number of players in the industry and it needed to be fixed.
I'd just like to say that I have worked closely with stakeholders in my state and I wanted to get on record today that I recognise that a number of them are disappointed with the changes to the wine equalisation tax in the bill that we have before us today. There are some that, with the changes to the threshold, will lose $150,000 a year. These producers are by no means large producers; in fact, by Australian domestic standards, they're still very small producers. So that money is still very important to them, and I know they're bitterly disappointed with some of these changes.
I also want to recognise that we need to keep a very close eye on how the cellar door rebate system works. The rebate's critically important for small vineyards such as the one that I used to run. It helps employ people in regional areas and it helps bring tourism to regional areas. I'm not sure that we've got the balance exactly right on that.
Overall, though, we felt like putting this in contro and taking it to committee stage and trying to move amendments wouldn't get the support of the Senate, but I want to get on record today that I recognise the disappointment of some producers in Tasmania. But, to be fair, I also recognise there are a number of small producers that are happy with the changes. Unfortunately, it's a zero-sum game: some win and some lose. I'm not sure that the government's actually going to raise much revenue out of this at all, so I'm not quite sure what the purpose of changing the thresholds is, if it's not raising revenue. Nevertheless, it is what it is, and we will be supporting this today.
I would like to make a couple of quick comments. I would like to thank the senators for their contributions. In terms of how the WET rebate currently operates, it applies to 29 per cent of the value of the last wholesale sale of the wine. The rebate currently provides producers a rebate of 29 per cent of the wholesale value of the eligible domestic sales of up to half a million dollars per year. The eligibility for the rebate is broad, with the rebate able to be claimed on bulk and unbranded wine. The rebate can be claimed multiple times on the same wine throughout the production chain where it is subject to blending or further manufacturing before being sold.
The current system allows the rebate to be claimed and the WET liability to be deferred through the supply chain to the last wholesale sale. This can result in the rebate being claimed and no corresponding WET paid when the wine is subsequently exported. The tightened eligibility criteria will remove rebate access from bulk and unbranded wine, which contribute to structures that exploit the rebate. It will stop the rebate from being claimed multiple times on the same wine through the production chain where it is subject to blending or further manufacture, and will strengthen the link between the rebate being claimed and the WET being paid. 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 Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017, which makes technical amendments to 13 acts. This will harmonise those acts with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013—the PGPA Act—and the Commonwealth's broader resource management framework.
Labor supports these technical amendments that will consistently prescribe listed entities, correct references to the old pieces of financial management legislation, repeal provisions in a number of acts for issues that are now covered by the PGPA Act such as the disclosure of interest and annual reporting requirements and make minor amendments to legislation consequential to the sale of Medibank Private Limited in 2014.
Labor in government undertook significant reforms to the Commonwealth financial management arrangements. This included the commencement of the Public Management Reform Agenda back in 2010. Labor's reforms also included the introduction of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. That act replaced the bifurcated model of Commonwealth financial management. It replaced the old Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.
Our reforms have established the framework needed for a modern public sector. These reforms are based on a number of key principles, including: (1) government should operate as a coherent whole; (2) a common set of duties should apply to all public resources handled by Commonwealth entities—these should be managed prudently and efficiently; (3) performance of the public sector is more than financial; and (4) engaging with risk is a necessary step in improving performance.
We support this bill because the changes it makes are broadly consistent with these principles, but we do have some concerns with the way the government has managed our public resources and public governance arrangements. This government has made a mess of the budget. The AAA credit rating is at risk. The deficit for this year is 10 times bigger than in the Liberals' first budget. Gross debt is around half a trillion dollars for the first time ever, an amount the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer described as 'a truckload of debt' and 'an absolutely extraordinary amount of debt'—to quote him. Last week the government inappropriately wasted $122 million on a postal survey. It was astonishing to hear the Treasurer say that spending $122 million on a divisive, harmful and non-binding opinion poll is money well spent.
The PGPA Act provided more flexible arrangements for entities and relied on the management of a number of subordinate rules and regulations. Officials are expected to be held to a high standard of accountability, and yet we have recently seen Australia Post and other agencies act to hide the remuneration of their senior executives. This was enabled by changes to the reporting rules made by the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. This bill does not fix that problem. The government has informally requested a number of Commonwealth entities to revert to the previous regime of remuneration reporting. The Auditor-General considered:
There would be benefit in … making the aggregate level of transparency for key management … remuneration in the public sector consistent with that required for listed entities.
We welcomed the release of those reports at the Minister for Finance's request. However, the government should act to ensure that these are formally required of all Commonwealth entities, and it has not acted on this.
To confirm: we will be supporting this bill, but we do have concerns with the way the government has managed our public resources and financial governance, and our support for this bill should not be taken to suggest otherwise.
Firstly, I'd like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. I commend the Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017 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 the Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017 continues the Australian Government's effort to tidy up the Commonwealth's statute book with the repeal of four spent and redundant Commonwealth Acts within the Education and Training portfolio.
The four Acts being repealed are:
The Australian Research Council (or ARC) invests in excellent fundamental and applied research that helps improve the quality of people's lives, supports Australian industries and businesses and ensures our nation remains at the cutting edge of research, innovation and global competitiveness.
However, the Australian Research Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act 2001, which the Bill repeals, is no longer relevant to the ARC because its primary legislative purpose is obsolete and non-operational.
The Government's investment through the ARC is significant in a wide variety of fundamental and applied research projects, growing Australia's research capacity and infrastructure.
On the 5 June 2017, the Government announced 120 new research projects across Australia with $170.6 million to tackle problems from fire safety to the country's ageing population, literacy and numeracy levels in school kids and coral reef conservation.
The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Act 2005 established Australian Technical Colleges to enable Year 11 and 12 students to undertake a School-based New Apprenticeship and to undertake academic studies leading to successful completion of the Year 12 Certificate which would complement their trade training.
By the end of 2009, these colleges had been integrated into the broader education and training system of jurisdictions and the Act is now redundant.
The Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005 governed financial grants to the states and territories to support the national training system for the years from 2005 to 2008.
As a vehicle for payments it has been superseded. Since 2009, payments have been made under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 via the National Agreements for Skills and Workforce Development.
The Bill also repeals the Skilling Australia's Workforce (Repeal and Transitional Provisions) Act 2005 which effected the winding up of the Australian National Training Authority and the transfer of its functions to the then Department of Education, Science and Training more than a decade ago.
Each of the Acts being repealed has served its purpose and is now obsolete. Users of Commonwealth legislation should not have to sift through outdated, unnecessary regulations to determine whether they still apply.
Allowing spent and redundant acts or provisions to remain in force on the Commonwealth's statute book only makes it harder for businesses, community organisations, and individuals to find the regulations that are current and that matter to them.
Proper housekeeping is part of every government's responsibility to ensure that the legislation on the statute book continues to remain 'fit for purpose'.
Bills like this demonstrate this Government's continuing commitment to make steady and consistent progress to reduce red tape by repealing redundant and unnecessary legislation that has outlived its purpose.
I commend the Bill.
Labor supports the Education and Training Legislation Repeal Bill 2017. It tidies up legislative instruments which are currently obsolete. The Australian Technical Colleges (Flexibility in Achieving Australia's Skills Needs) Act 2005 underpinned the Australian Technical Colleges program, which was wound up by the end of 2009. Any continuing functions were rolled into the broader education and training system.
Australian technical colleges, or ATCs, were to provide training pathways for year 11 and 12 students while they simultaneously completed a secondary certificate of education. The ATCs were a coalition government creation that proved to be expensive and ineffectual. They suffered from low enrolments, problems sourcing staff and contributed very little to filling the trade shortages that they were funded to reverse. The ATC program was yet another attempt by the government to undermine TAFEs and public schools. The government wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on poorly-thought-through ATCs while underfunding public provision of vocational education and training. Repealing the now obsolete ATC Act serves as a reminder of the coalition's past and current failure to develop and implement a workable means of improving the provision and uptake of trades training.
Since the Abbott-Turnbull government took office there are 148,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in training across Australia, including 46,900 fewer trade apprentices, which is a drop of 22 per cent in trades training. Upon taking office, the government cut funding to trades training centres and got rid of trade cadetships. They have continued to chop and change on vocational education and training in schools policy because they don't care about whether it succeeds or fails. The Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005 provided grants to states and territories to support the national training system from 2005 to 2008, after which it was superseded by payment arrangements under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 via the National Agreement on Skills and Workforce Development.
While the government is busy repealing obsolete education and training acts, the real business of ensuring ongoing skill development in Australia is being ignored. As it stands, the government still has no agreement with the states or territories to replace the national partnership on skills reform, which expired at the end of June. Both the ATC program and the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005 are reminders of the coalition government's ongoing obsession with destroying unions and compelling organisations to adopt the government's ideologically-driven employment framework. The funding to states and territories under the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act was contingent on a range of ideologically-driven reforms designed to damage TAFEs and education unions such as workplace reforms for increased employment flexibility—yet people pretend that won't be part of the agenda for higher education at the moment—and encouraging the take-up of Australian workplace agreements and performance-based pay.
The then Department of Education, Science and Training's guidelines for Australian technical colleges stated that operators at ATCs were required to offer Australian workplace agreements to all staff, as well as offering performance based pay. The government cut Labor's Trade Training Centres in Schools Program after they came into office in 2013. The government also got rid of trade cadetships, despite significant industry support. These allowed students to finish school and to start a trade.
Labor supports this bill to tidy up legislative instruments which are obsolete, but laments this government's poor record on providing, encouraging and supporting important trades training.
I thank senators for their contribution and 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 the Committee of the Whole.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
The Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill 2017 makes minor and technical changes to the Commonwealth statute book to improve its quality and accuracy.
The process of correcting the statute book and repealing spent provisions and Acts has been undertaken regularly since 1934.
John Latham, Member for Kooyong and Attorney-General at the time (and later to become Chief Justice of the High Court) had this to say about the introduction of the first of these types of Bill in 1934:
There is an obligation resting upon the Government of the Commonwealth, and upon this Parliament, to present the statute law of the Commonwealth in a convenient, accessible and readily intelligible form.
These update Bills are an essential tool in the process of keeping an orderly, accurate and up-to-date Commonwealth statute book.
The main purposes of these Bills are to:
This Bill contains four schedules.
Schedule 1 corrects errors in 17 principal Acts and makes minor technical improvements to clarify the text of the law.
Schedule 2 amends six Acts where cross-references were not updated after changes were made by the ActsandInstruments (Framework Reform) Act 2015 to rename the LegislativeInstruments Act 2003 as the LegislationAct 2003 and renumber some provisions of that Act.
Schedule 3 to the Bill repeals 19 spent and obsolete provisions of Acts.
Schedule 4 repeals four redundant Acts.
These amendments enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and administration, and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book.
Labor will be supporting the Statute Update (Winter 2017) Bill. The parliament has introduced these sorts of bills regularly since 1934. They deal with uncontroversial technical matters which will not in substance change the operation of the law. They all correct drafting errors, remove spent and obsolete provisions and update cross-references. Statute update bills are different from statute law revision bills because they are intended to make minor changes to the substance and legal effect of provisions. In contrast, statute law revision bills contain measures that do not alter the substance of the bill but, rather, make minor technical corrections of a purely formal nature. In his second reading speech for the bill, the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, said, 'These update bills are an essential tool in the process of keeping an orderly, accurate and up-to-date Commonwealth statute book.'
In the previous parliament, statute law revision bills were introduced as a part of a regular repeal-day package. The Abbott government claimed that they had a regulatory reform agenda and that they were cutting red tape with these sorts of instruments, when actually they were merely engaging in the routine work of the parliament. It comes as something of a relief that the current Prime Minister has not trumpeted up this bill as part of his 25-point battle plan for legislative reform, supposedly to be expedited through the parliament. As part of the 2015 autumn repeal day, the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015 was heralded as one of the Attorney-General Department's deregulation measures. It was estimated that the bill would lead to an annual saving of $100,000 in compliance costs. The report of the 2015 spring repeal day said the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015 would lead to a savings of $50,000 in compliance costs. None of these claims have been independently verified, as was recommended by the Australian National Audit Office in its report Implementing thederegulation agenda: cutting red tape and by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
Labor is happy to support this bill which corrects technical errors, makes other minor amendments to statutes, and repeals spent and obsolete provisions and acts. Many of the amendments do not affect the substance of the law but are intended to enhance clarity and accuracy. Some amendments make minor changes to the substance of the law. The bill contains four schedules. Schedule 1 amends technical errors and makes other minor amendments to 18 principal acts. Schedule 2 makes amendments to six principal acts consequential to the Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) Act 2015. Schedule 3 repeals spent and obsolete provisions in five principal acts. Schedule 4 repeals four spent amending acts. None of this is groundbreaking, just part of the government's routine work.
Far from being about deregulation, this bill does nothing that has not been done regularly by governments and by this parliament since 1934. This bill does not reduce the regulatory burden on Australian business nor does it remove or streamline any operative regulation. I thank the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for their hard work in maintaining the Commonwealth statute book and for their work on this bill as on all other statute update bills.
I thank the senator for her contribution and 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 seek leave to move a motion to take note of the government response to an order for the production of documents.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator McKim moving a motion relating to the Government's failure to provide a response to an order for production of documents concerning the Member for New England.
The reason I'm doing this in this way is that the Attorney-General is failing to provide the legal advice that the government is relying on in its quite abject defence of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce. Certainly the Attorney-General has a right to decline to provide that legal advice, but it is the Senate's right to insist that the documents be produced irrespective of the claim for public interest immunity, because all we've got so far is a claim for public interest immunity made by a minister of the Crown. It is up to this place, the Senate, and all the senators in this place to determine whether it will accept that claim or, on the converse side of the discussion, to insist on the production of the legal advice. This suspension of standing orders will be, in effect, this Senate insisting that the Attorney-General provide the advice.
We've got a crisis in our democracy happening right now, as we speak. This is not just a crisis that is contained within the walls of this parliament or this chamber; it is a crisis of confidence in our democratic process out on the streets; in the pubs and the clubs, whether they be sporting or otherwise, of our country; and particularly around the dinner tables of ordinary Australians. We have a number of members of the Senate referred already to the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, and I'd bet my bottom dollar we will see more MPs referred to the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, as we move through the coming weeks and months.
What the Australian Greens want is evidence of two things, and really two things only. I am sure that the Senate will be prepared to compromise so that other matters can remain protected by a claim of public interest immunity. The first thing we want to see is the part of the legal advice that the Prime Minister was relying on when he issued his riding instructions to the High Court earlier this week and gave an absolute 100 per cent guarantee of certainty that the High Court would rule in favour of Mr Joyce remaining eligible to sit in this parliament, and that is that part of the legal advice that shows that the advice is unequivocal—in other words, that bit of the advice that allowed the Prime Minister to proceed with the 100 per cent level of certainty that he did earlier this week in the House of Representatives. What gives him and the Attorney-General such confidence that the High Court is, with absolute certainty, going to rule that Mr Joyce was eligible to be elected and therefore is eligible to remain as a member of parliament?
Remember, this isn't a humble backbencher we're talking about—I know humility's not a strong suit of Mr Joyce. This man is the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, and within a couple of weeks he's going to be the Acting Prime Minister of Australia. He's going to be running the show at the same time as the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, is going to be considering how to respond to the reference by the House of Representatives of the Deputy Prime Minister, who will soon be running the country when the PM is overseas.
So let's have a look at that part of the legal advice that the government, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister are relying on that shows that the advice is unequivocal. It's worth placing on the record that government experts and their own legal counsel have told us that it's pretty much black and white, as Mr Joyce said. The second element we're after is the part of the S-G's advice that demonstrates that the member for New England is legitimately authorised to remain and vote in the parliament. That is what we are demanding. (Time expired)
First of all, I should point out to the Senate that neither I nor my office nor, so far as I can establish, the government received any notice of this motion by Senator McKim to suspend standing orders. I know that Senator McKim hasn't been here for very long, but it is a longstanding courtesy of this chamber that a motion of this kind is only moved after notice has been given. I see Senator McKim giggling away up there on the crossbench. Senator McKim, if you're not prepared to extend your colleagues the ordinary professional courtesy that is always extended by colleagues in this chamber to one another, despite party differences, you do not belong here.
The motion is a motion to suspend standing orders so as to take note of the response of the government to an order to produce documents. The order to produce documents sought the production of legal advice—specifically, Solicitor-General advice. It is well known to every member of this chamber that, as a matter of course, governments do not publish their legal advice. That is a practice observed by Labor governments and coalition governments alike. The principle, which was stated by a former Labor Attorney-General, Gareth Evans QC, some years ago, is this:
Nor is it the practice or has it been the practice over the years for any government to make available legal advice from its legal advisers made in the course of the normal decision making process of government, for good practical reasons associated with good government and also as a matter of fundamental principle.
Former Senator Evans said that in this chamber on 28 August 1995. The practice to which former Senator Evans then referred is a practice that had been observed by every Australian government since federation and, although that statement was made in 1995, it has been observed by every Australian government since, including, most recently, by the Gillard government, when Senator Ludwig, who represented the Attorney-General of that government, during an estimates hearing on 26 May 2011 said:
To the extent that we are now going to go to the content of the advice, can I say that it has been a longstanding practice of both this government and successive governments not to disclose the content of advice.
And that statement is not only correct; it is uncontroversial—indeed, it is canonical.
Now—on no notice whatsoever—what Senator McKim seeks to do is to overturn 116 years of constitutional orthodoxy. Of course the government will not be producing legal advice because we will be observing the fundamental, well-established and never-questioned constitutional orthodoxy that governments do not produce their legal advice. And I look forward to hearing Senator Collins, who represents the Labor Party in the chamber at the moment, confirming that that is the Labor Party's understanding of the constitutional orthodoxy.
The question of Mr Joyce was referred by the government, of its own free choice, to the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, on Monday of this week after receiving Solicitor-General advice and after having considered that advice. On the basis of the government's consideration of that advice, we have taken the position that we have taken. Nevertheless, the matter is going to be argued before the High Court in coming weeks and, because of that, of course it would put the parties in an impossible position if the legal advice on which the government acted, which was received confidentially, were to be published.
The opposition will not be supporting this suspension of standing orders today. This is not for the reasons advanced by Senator Brandis, however. He characterises courtesy in this chamber around matters around the order for production of documents. Yet I can recall not long ago Senator Birmingham refusing to respond to a Senate order for production of documents on that occasion. I can recall countless suspensions of standing orders that have occurred following the chamber's refusal to allow a senator to take note without any notice.
Senator Brandis interjecting—
'An issue of this kind,' says Senator Brandis. Well, I'm sorry, Senator Brandis, but I also differ with your characterisation about the position with respect to legal advice—but once again you will say, 'Not on matters of this nature.' There have been countless situations where, with careful consideration, government has provided legal advice.
I would like to make it very clear that the opposition thinks the Attorney-General should comply with the Senate's order yesterday for the production of documents. This Attorney-General is a serial offender when it comes to ignoring orders of the Senate, particularly when it comes to orders for production of documents. This is a very serious matter as it deals with the eligibility of the member for New England and Deputy Prime Minister to sit in the other place and, indeed, hold the second-highest office of the land.
We will not be supporting this suspension of standing orders for a few reasons. Firstly, the time frame for compliance with the order of the Senate was midday today. And while we note that the Attorney-General has not met this deadline, it is still now only around 90 minutes past that time. We would use this opportunity to remind the Attorney-General of the seriousness of the matter that surrounds this order for the production of document and we call on him to comply with the order as a matter of urgency. Secondly, we do not respect that the government does not always release legal advice. This is a matter that needs to be considered seriously. Thus, there is some flexibility in Labor's position about the time frame. However, it is open to the Attorney to release appropriate redacted advice that meets the order of the Senate without prejudicing hearings.
We also note that the matter surrounding the Deputy Prime Minister's citizenship is shortly to be before the High Court of Australia. I do, however, foreshadow to the Attorney-General and the government in the Senate that the opposition will be watching compliance with this order very carefully. It is open to pursuing this matter in the next sitting period in this chamber. We aren't supporting Senator McKim, because in this attempt to censure Senator Wong he has only given us as much notice as he gave the opposition yesterday. It is for these reasons that the opposition will not be supporting the suspension today.
I will be supporting the Greens' move to suspend standing orders because I do agree with Senator McKim that it is a matter of major importance. Here we have this man, the second-highest officer in the land, the Deputy Prime Minister, holding onto his job there. The Attorney-General, himself, stood alongside Senator Canavan when he relinquished his ministerial position and his place in cabinet and said he would not vote until the High Court hearing had been done. I think that was right and proper. I saw the Deputy Prime Minister on Sky News last night. He didn't seem to be showing much remorse, given the situation. This should be discussed, and I agree that the standing orders should be suspended.
This is a motion to suspend standing orders to deal with a matter that has already been raised a number of times in this chamber. If there is any doubt whatsoever about any member of parliament, the right institution to determine that is the High Court, not a kangaroo court of this chamber, which the Greens keep trying to set up.
I say to Senator McKim, by interjection, that it has been raised in several newspapers that he is English-born and has never, as I understand it, shown any material on how he has renounced that citizenship.
Senator McKim, a point of order?
Senator Macdonald is misleading the Senate. What he has just said is false.
That is not a point of order.
Perhaps, if Senator McKim takes some umbrage at that, he could easily fix it by tabling the documents in the Senate, which is what he asked everybody else to do. You see, it is always one rule for everyone else and a separate rule for the Greens political party. I might say to anyone having the misfortune to listen to this debate that Senator McKim was once a minister in a government—albeit, the government of Tasmania—
Senator McKim, a point of order?
He's taking pot shots at my home state of Tasmania, which I resent and which every Tasmanian will resent.
It is not a point of order.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. You can see this particular senator has no respect for the chamber and keeps trying to stop other people from having their say, which is typical of the Greens. They always rail about freedom of speech. They talk about it for everyone else, but when people try to say something they continually take alleged points of order which they know are not points of order.
As I was saying, Senator McKim was—would anyone believe?—once a minister in a government, albeit the government of Tasmania. I might ask Senator McKim: how many legal advices did the government of which you were once a member release publicly? I put the same question to Senator Collins. We've heard what Mr Gareth Evans, former senator and Attorney-General, said about releasing legal advice. Senator Collins, you might indicate to us how many times your party in government did that. If it is one or two, I would be interested in hearing about it. But I certainly follow the dictum of former Senator Evans in relation to legal advice. I invite Senator McKim to indicate how many times the government of which he was a member released legal advice.
Senator McKim, in his flowery speech, spoke about a crisis of confidence in democracy. If there were ever an example of a crisis of confidence in democracy, it is the Greens political party. Time and time again we see the Greens political party wasting the resources of this parliament and stopping proper debate on an important bill that the government is trying to deal with by this Mickey Mouse suggestion of getting some legal advice. I refer to a Greens motion where they set up, with the support of the Labor Party and the Xenophon party, a committee to look into a matter of political donations, which is exactly the same thing a joint standing committee—a permanent standing committee of this parliament—is looking into at this very moment. It is exactly the same thing, exactly the same subject, and yet the Greens political party, supported by the Labor Party and by Senator Xenophon, are setting up yet another committee to do exactly the same.
So we're going to have two parliamentary committees inquiring into the same thing. Witnesses are going to be confused. We're using the resources of the Senate, which are limited—you wouldn't believe it if you saw the number of ridiculous inquiries the Greens have set up. The resources of the Senate are limited. Those resources should be directed towards real inquiries, not something where another committee is doing exactly the same. Mr Acting Deputy President, there, in that corner, where the Greens sit, is the crisis in democracy in Australia.
I just want to reiterate the comments of my fellow senator, in that we won't be supporting this suspension of standing orders. I'm going to be very brief here because I know other senators want to speak. I want make a little bit of a point with what Senator Macdonald said a moment ago. There have been instances where governments have made a decision to release legal advice.
A government senator: After the event.
No, not only after the event. In September 2011, the Gillard government released the Solicitor-General's advice about offshore processing. In February 2000, the Howard coalition government released the Solicitor-General's advice about amendments to the Ministers of State Act. And, in August 1995, the Keating government released the Solicitor-General's advice relating to the Marks royal commission. My point is that there have been examples, both before and after events, where it has been done. There has not been a tendency at all times to do that. That's something that certainly on this side of the chamber we agree with.
I want to note that one of the arguments that was made was that no proper notice has been given for the production of documents and for the suspension motion. I would note that yesterday morning those of us on this side of the chamber came in to find out that suddenly there was a censure, or a proposal, and a suspension of standing orders.
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Only moments beforehand. So, on this idea that the notice is the issue, it is not that.
I do however believe—and I know that others of us on this side of the chamber believe—that this is an important, complicated, significant debate that needs to be had. It has to be had in a rational and timely fashion. I again congratulate the Attorney-General for the words that he spoke in this chamber last week on this matter, broadly around the section 44 matters, where he said that there is a responsibility for us to act maturely—I am paraphrasing here—without stance and in a sensible manner because the integrity of this place gets held to account with that. I believe, and I believe that those of us on this side of the chamber believe, that, while it's proper for people to make claims for documents, and we'll support them from time to time in doing that, the idea of suddenly upending the Senate to try and grandstand on this issue at this point in time would certainly not be an appropriate way of doing that. The complexity of these issues—and they are complex issues—is best served by a mature, sensible debate around these matters, and I echo the words the Attorney-General used, as did Senator Farrell, in the chamber about this matter last week.
I rise to speak in favour of this suspension of standing orders. The reason is, of course, that we have asked the government to release the much-relied-upon legal advice. We're about to leave this chamber. Parliament's about to rise in some 2½ hours. There won't be an opportunity for votes. People are going to be getting back on their planes and going home for two weeks. Meanwhile, we have a Deputy Prime Minister who is apparently both an Australian citizen and a New Zealand citizen and therefore not eligible to be in the parliament, according to the Constitution.
When we talk about timeliness and we talk about the seriousness of this issue, cry me a river from the government when they want to complain that we've just sprung this upon them. All week the government have said that they rely on this legal advice from the Solicitor-General and that we should all just trust them. The Australian people are sick and tired of just being told, 'Trust us,' by the Turnbull government. I can tell them: they do not trust you. They do not trust you!
Only weeks ago, the member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, said there were no problems, that he'd done all the paperwork. His office phoned up and told a journalist, 'Everything's A-OK, mate.' It turns out that it wasn't. They asked the Australian people to trust them, and they blew it. He's not fit to be in the government, on the front bench as a minister, let alone—
Senator Brandis on a point of order?
The Senator is reflecting on Mr Joyce.
Senator McKim on the point of order?
Yes, thank you. What Senator Hanson-Young was doing was commenting on a matter that has been widely commented on in both the Senate and the other place this week, and that is whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister has been legitimately elected to the parliament. That's what she was commenting on and that has been a matter of continual comment for the entire week.
Senator Brandis, I will hear from you again.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Standing order 193(3) says:
(3) A senator shall not use offensive words against either House of Parliament or of a House of a state or territory parliament, or any member of such House, or against a judicial officer, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.
Contrary to what Senator McKim represented, what Senator Hanson-Young said was that Mr Joyce was not fit to occupy the offices that he has occupied: not eligibility—not a legal question—but fitness, and that is plainly a reflection upon his character.
Senator Brandis has taken offence to the words you've used, Senator Hanson-Young, and as a consequence of that you need to withdraw.
I do not see how—I would like a ruling from the chair.
I have just ruled. So it is no longer for debate; you either withdraw or not.
I am happy to withdraw, but I will be writing to the President and asking him to reflect on whether a minister who is ineligible to be elected to parliament is fit to be a minister.
You have withdrawn. Thank you for that. You are free to consult the President, as any senator is. I will ask the clock to start and you have the call.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It seems that the government, of course, is incredibly nervous about releasing the legal documentation that they have and that they are relying on, to keep the member for New England, the Deputy Prime Minister, in protection.
The member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, seems more protected than the bilby. This is a ridiculous situation, when we have the government of the day saying that we need to rely on their word and the word of the Solicitor-General. They do not release the documentation but say that we should just all suck it up, that Barnaby Joyce remains Deputy Prime Minister. No-one trusts you. No-one trusts that you are doing this for the legitimate and right reasons. No-one believes you.
We all know what this is about: this is because you have a very slim majority in the House! The member for New England holds his seat by a very slim margin. Let's call this for what it is: a protection racket for the member for New England and for the numbers in the House for the Turnbull government. This is absolutely what this is. This is covering up the incompetence of the Deputy Prime Minister. I don't think anyone out there in the Australian public is particularly surprised that the member for New England didn't check his paperwork. Do you think anyone is surprised at the incompetence of the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce? I don't think so. I don't think so at all!
Look at the other foolish things that the Deputy Prime Minister has done in recent months. He has no regard for the position of Deputy Prime Minister. If he did, he would resign. If he really cared about the institution which he holds, and the institution of which he is part as a minister, he would resign. This has made the government a joke—an absolute joke! It's a farce and everybody can see it. Everybody can see what a farce this is. A protection racket is going on here. The member for New England is not even legitimately elected and he gets to sit there as Deputy Prime Minister. In a couple of weeks, when the Prime Minister goes overseas on diplomatic work, he's going to become the Prime Minister. What type of farce have we got when we have the acting Prime Minister of Australia as someone who couldn't be bothered to do his paperwork, lied about it, tried to cover it up and got caught out, and is now only there because of the protection racket being run by the Turnbull government?
The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The committee is considering the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, as amended, and opposition amendments (40) and (41) on sheet 8144, moved by Senator Cameron. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
Yesterday, during the committee stage, there was an agreement between the opposition and Senator Xenophon that we would have some discussions on certain aspects of the bill. For obvious reasons, we haven't been in a position to get together with Senator Xenophon to deal with that, so I would, with the concurrence with the minister, be happy to have either Senator Leyonhjelm or the minister move to their amendments so that we can have time to discuss the issues.
The government agrees with the proposition that's been put forward by Senator Cameron. On that basis, given that the government's amendments are technical amendments, I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (5) on sheet JH138 together.
We might just do it by leave. Could someone just, by leave, withdraw the question that's before the chair at the moment.
I seek leave to withdraw the question before the chair.
Leave granted.
by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (5) on sheet JH138 together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 6), after item 12, insert:
12A At the end of subsection 550(1)
Add:
Note: If a person (the involved person) is taken under this subsection to have contravened a civil remedy provision, the involved person's contravention may be a serious contravention (see subsection 557A(5A)). Serious contraventions attract higher maximum penalties (see subsection 539(2)).
(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (lines 2 to 9), omit subsection 557A(1), substitute:
(1) A contravention of a civil remedy provision by a person is a serious contravention if:
(a) the person knowingly contravened the provision; and
(b) the person's conduct constituting the contravention was part of a systematic pattern of conduct relating to one or more other persons.
Note: For the liability of bodies corporate for serious contraventions, see section 557B.
Example: Generally, subsection 323(1) requires an employer to pay an employee the full amount payable to the employee in relation to the performance of work.
A contravention of subsection 323(1) is a serious contravention if the employer knowingly does not pay the employee in full (even if the employer does not know the exact amount of the underpayment) and that contravention is part of a systematic pattern of conduct by the employer. The systematic pattern of conduct of the employer may relate to more than one employee and may consist of different contraventions.
Systematic pattern of conduct
(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (after line 18), after paragraph 557A(2)(c), insert:
(ca) the person's response, or failure to respond, to any complaints made about the relevant contraventions; and
(4) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (after line 36), after subsection 557A(5), insert:
Involvement in a serious contravention
(5A) A person (the involved person) who is involved in a contravention of a civil remedy provision by another person (the principal) commits a serious contravention of the provision only if:
(a) the principal's contravention was a serious contravention; and
(b) the involved person knew that the principal's contravention was a serious contravention.
Application for a serious contravention order and alternative orders
(5) Schedule 1, item 13, page 7 (lines 14 to 17), omit subsection 557B(1), substitute:
(1) For the purposes of subsection 557A(1), a body corporate knowingly contravenes a civil remedy provision if the body corporate expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised the contravention.
These amendments are clarifying amendments. Item (4) amends section 557A to clarify that an accessory may be liable for a higher penalty under the serious contraventions regime if they are involved in a serious contravention by the principal wrongdoer and knew that the principal's contravention was a serious contravention. The amendment flows from the Senate committee report in relation to this bill and basically clarifies when an accessory may be subject to the proposed higher penalties for serious contraventions. It clarifies that anyone who knowingly involves themselves in the deliberate and systematic underpayment of workers will face the higher penalties that apply to that conduct. This approach is consistent with the current approach to accessorial liability under section 550 of the Fair Work Act, under which an alleged accessory must have knowledge of the essential elements of the contravention to be liable for that contravention.
On the second amendment: I propose to amend section 557A(1) of the bill to clarify the existing intention that a contravention is deliberate in the context of the serious contraventions regime if the person knowingly contravened the provision. Again, this amendment responds to the Senate committee report and clarifies what a wrongdoer needs to know before they can be held responsible for a serious contravention. The amendment uses language and concepts already used elsewhere under the Fair Work Act and so should be easier to understand and apply. It also means that, for the higher penalties under the serious contraventions regime to apply, the wrongdoer must knowingly contravene the provision and it must form part of a systematic pattern of conduct.
On the final amendment that I have moved: I propose to amend section 557A(2) of the bill to add an additional matter to the non-exhaustive list of matters that a court may consider when determining whether a person's conduct was part of a systematic pattern of conduct. Again, the purpose of the amendment is to respond to the Senate committee report and it sets out additional guidance about when a contravention may qualify as serious. This amendment improves the operation of the bill by ensuring that employers who do the right thing by quickly and decisively responding to complaints about underpayments that are brought to their attention are not subjected to higher penalties. On the other hand, it will be relevant to the court's consideration if employers repeatedly fail to respond to wage complaints without a reasonable excuse. Again, these amendments are technical amendments that respond to the Senate committee's report, and I commend them to the Senate.
Minister, I understand there is a supplementary explanatory memorandum—
There is. I would seek leave to table the supplementary explanatory memorandum.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You don't need leave. That is now tabled. Thank you, Minister.
We understand that the intention of this provision is to clarify what constitutes accessorial liability for serious contraventions. It arises from concerns raised with the Senate employment committee by Professor Andrew Stewart in his submission. Can the minister clarify proposed section 557A(5A)(b)? The statement is that the involved person knew that the principal's contravention was a serious contravention and it requires the involved person to know. Is it that the principal's conduct was part of a systemic pattern of conduct involving one or more persons, or is it something more than that?
It being nearly two o'clock, the committee will now report progress.
Progress reported.
I advise the Senate of changes to ministerial arrangements for today. Senator Payne will be absent from question time today, due to ministerial duties. In Senator Payne's absence, I will represent the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Industry, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Personnel and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC. Senator Cash will represent the Minister for Human Services.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Scullion. I refer to the Treasurer, who says:
… let's not think that there's cheap new coal, there's not.
Does the minister agree with the Treasurer?
Look, I don't really know the context of those particular words, and I'd have to look—as always, with the abundance of caution in these matters in this place—to ensure the context before I could answer that. But can I say that I have listened to my colleague Matt Canavan—Senator Canavan, who I'm representing today—on so many occasions talk about the necessity for a range of hydrocarbon answers to the power that we require at the moment. He comes from Queensland and he knows, as does everybody on this side, that coal has to be a complete and utter part of the answer. So I am a believer that the reality is that, in terms of the power mix in this country, coal has to be an absolutely fundamental part of the future.
Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.
Before I ask my supplementary question, can I clarify whether Minister Scullion was taking my first question on notice. I wasn't clear whether he did or not.
I will advise the minister to clarify that. Minister, were you taking any portion of that question on notice?
No, I wasn't.
Thank you. Senator McAllister, that's now clarified. A supplementary question?
Thank you. The Australian Financial Review reported earlier this week:
Treasurer … Morrison says the era of cheap, coal-fired power is coming to an end …
Is the Treasurer correct?
Again, I'd have to take the Treasurer's notes in context. I will take that on notice, but I will have to check the context of the Treasurer's utterances, and I'll get back to the senator on that matter.
Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.
I refer to the former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan, who said:
The coalition position is crystal clear: we back coal.
Given the Treasurer's statements, can it be assumed that the coalition's position has changed since Senator Canavan resigned from the ministry?
No, that can't be assumed to be the case.
My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, and I note the minister's answers given yesterday. I ask: is the minister aware of recent reports about payments from registered organisations to certain political campaigns?
I thank Senator Duniam for his question and, yes, I am. This morning we saw the extraordinary reports that, when he was National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, was allegedly delegated the power in 2006 to unilaterally donate AWU funds—that is, the membership fees of thousands and thousands of workers—to political campaigns of his choice. And what did he do? Well, he did make donations. When Mr Shorten was national secretary he gave $25,000 of his union's money to none other than himself. That's right; Mr Shorten used his position at the AWU to donate members' money—members' money that he was entrusted as the national secretary to use in their best interests—to his own safe seat campaign for parliament. This, colleagues, is of course eerily similar to the actions of another former Labor member of parliament, Mr Craig Thompson. Mr Craig Thompson was national secretary of the Health Services Union in 2007. Mr Bill Shorten was national secretary of the AWU at the same time. Mr Craig Thompson ran for parliament in 2007. So did Mr Shorten. Mr Thompson spent union members' money on his own political campaign. So did Mr Shorten. But there's one key difference: at least Mr Thompson fronted the parliament and gave an explanation as to why. It may not have been a very good explanation, but at least he told the parliament why. Mr Shorten still needs to explain on what authority he gave money—AWU money—to his own election campaign.
Senator Duniam, a supplementary question.
What risks are there in a registered organisation donating money to the political campaigns of its own staff?
Senator Hanson having entered the chamber
What on earth?
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senators, order! Senators, I've been advised by the clerk via the attendant that the identity of Senator Hanson was established before she entered the chamber. I'm just going to reflect on the mode of dress that Senator Hanson is using. We'll continue with question time.
When a registered organisation donates to the political campaigns of its own staff, there is an obvious perception of a conflict of interest. Most organisations would try and avoid this entirely. But Mr Shorten, on the other hand, appears to have happily ensured his union's money was directed to his own election campaign. Again, he needs to answer the question: on what authority did he authorise the donation to his own campaign? Mr Shorten needs to come clean and produce the documents to demonstrate he did not break his union's own rules. Everyday Australians are entitled to ask: 'If Mr Shorten could be so reckless with his own union's money, how can he be trusted with the Australian economy?'
Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister outline what action the government is taking to improve the governance of registered organisations and prevent the inappropriate use of members' money?
The Turnbull government believes that registered organisations should spend their funds in the best interests of their members, not promoting the political careers of their officials. Mr Shorten's actions show he was very happy to use AWU members' funds to help further his own political aspirations, possibly in contravention of his own union's rules. The Turnbull government takes these matters seriously. That's why we passed legislation establishing the Registered Organisations Commission last year to ensure unions and employer groups have similar levels of accountability and transparency as companies. We have improved the disclosure requirements relating to personal interests for officers of registered organisations, along with financial accounting and disclosure obligations. We will always adhere to ensuring that the highest possible standards are set by registered organisations.
My question is to the Minister representing—
Senator Hinch on a point of order.
Mr President, we've been assured by you that the clerk has identified this person here as Senator Hanson. I would like to know: if Senator Hanson can stay here unchallenged—I understand that she's not a Muslim and she is not of Islamic faith—can I appear tomorrow in fancy dress unchallenged?
My rulings have always been, Senator Hinch, that I'm not going to dictate the standard of dress for senators in this chamber. I believe senators should be making their own decisions about their standard of dress. I will enforce the rules in relation to advertising material or in relation to inappropriate attire such as pyjamas and things like that, which has happened in the past. But, as I indicated, I'm going to reflect on the situation we have before us. I don't want to make a decision or a rash statement about that at the moment. And I'll be happy to entertain, outside of question time, senators' views about the matter. We'll proceed with question time. I call Senator Dastyari.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. I believe I have a very timely question for you. Yesterday the United States Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, released the International religious freedom report for 2016, which listed One Nation as a risk to religious freedom. Does the government agree with the Trump administration's assessment?
I haven't read it, Senator Dastyari.
Senator Dastyari on a supplementary question.
A real Liberal would condemn this, Minister.
To your question, Senator Dastyari.
Has the United States government communicated its concern about the risk that One Nation poses to religious freedom to the Australian government? This is the risk that was clearly outlined in the International religious freedom report for 2016 that has been in all media today.
Senator Dastyari, first of all, if I may return to your primary question, you asked me to comment on a document that I have not read and with which I am not familiar. I do not know whether or not the Australian government has received a communication of that kind from the American government, but I will inquire.
Senator Dastyari on a final supplementary question.
What measures is the Turnbull government considering in response to the Trump administration's assessment that One Nation is a risk to religious freedom?
Senator Dastyari, as I said in answer to your earlier questions, I am not familiar with the document and therefore I will not be commenting on it. However, if I may address for a moment the broader issue, the Turnbull government, like all Australian governments—I dare say—on both sides of the aisle, is very strongly committed to religious freedom. And indeed, might I point out to you that our Constitution contains an explicit constitutional protection of religious freedom in section 116. As well, Senator Dastyari, as you know, Australia is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which also contains strong expressions of support for and protection of religious freedom.
My question is to the Minister for Communications, Minister Fifield. The government has confirmed that it has agreed to a deal with One Nation to establish a competitive neutrality review. Could the minister please give the Senate an understanding of what the terms of reference for this will be? And can the minister rule out before this review commences that digital services of ABC iview and SBS On Demand will not in any way be affected?
I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her question. It is part of the discussions and agreement that the government has reached with Pauline Hanson's One Nation that there will be a competitive neutrality review. I have publicly indicated a couple of weeks ago that this whole area was one that the government would be taking a closer look at. For colleagues who mightn't be as familiar with the concept of competitive neutrality, it essentially revolves around the idea that government entities by virtue of that status should not use their position in a way that adversely or unfairly affects competition when it comes to commercial organisations. I think a number of colleagues would be aware that the Productivity Commission, for instance, has a unit to which organisations can make a complaint, be they government or private sector, in relation to competitive neutrality issues and that those will be examined. A number of commercial media organisations have over recent times raised issues.
Senator Hanson-Young, on a point of order?
I acknowledge the information coming from the minister, but I would like you to draw the minister to my direct question about the digital services of ABC iview and SBS On Demand, and whether they are under Pauline Hanson's axe.
You did also ask: what are the terms? I think the minister was outlining some of the terms, but the minister has heard your point of order.
We have announced that there will be an inquiry. We have not as yet outlined what the terms of reference will be. Those will be determined in consultation with both the commercial broadcasters and the public broadcasters. I'm sure a number of colleagues in this place will also have thoughts in relation to that. The ABC charter specifically mentions the ABC providing digital services. That is a matter of law. But I don't have any set views in terms of the outcomes of that inquiry.
Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question.
Minister, I take it from that, that you won't rule out cutting services to ABC iview. I draw your attention to that specifically. Could the minister please explain how the government sees that the ABC should be able to establish these other provisions demanded by One Nation and where the money will come from? What other services will be cut? (Time expired)
Nothing in the agreement that the government has entered into with One Nation relates to resourcing. Colleagues will be aware that in the budget before last the ABC's triennial funding was outlined. In terms of the review itself, I don't have any set views as to what the recommendations may be that come out of that. The ABC, as colleagues would know, has legislated independence, so the government is not in a position to direct and doesn't have an intention to direct the ABC. The ABC will continue to follow its charter. It will continue to operate independently as is guaranteed by the legislation. The competitive neutrality review is essentially a mechanism so that those who have issues in this area can have them ventilated.
Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question.
On Tuesday night, Senator Hanson declared in reference to the ABC:
I'd whack off quite a bit of money off it—hundreds of millions if I possibly could—but I'm going to wait next year til the budget and I'll talk to the Treasurer about that.
Will the government rule out any further negotiations with One Nation as Senator Hanson-Young has clearly identified she wants cuts to the ABC?
Government senators interjecting—
Order on my right!
Of course I want more money for the ABC. Senator Hanson wants cuts.
I thought there was an unlikely unity ticket there for a moment, but apparently not. There are range of colleagues in this place who have views about ABC resourcing. Some would like the ABC to have fewer resources and some would like the ABC to have more resources. It is open to any colleague to put their views in relation to those matters. As I indicated earlier, the government outlined and established the ABC's triennium funding the budget before last.
My question is to the Minister for Communications and Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Senator Fifield. In May, the minister said the government would give $30 million to Foxtel 'to support the broadcasting of women's sport and niche sports'. This month the minister suggested Foxtel was given the $30 million to compensate for the fact that other broadcasters were getting licence fee discounts. Which is it?
I made the observation, I think, in a number of interviews that I have undertaken that the government's media reform package recognises that different broadcasters operate in different environments. Colleagues would know that the government has decided to abolish licence fees for free-to-air broadcasters and to replace those with a more modest spectrum charge. Colleagues would also be aware that the government has announced that there will be further restrictions on the advertising of gambling during live sporting events, and that will be across platforms. I think colleagues will know that subscription TV doesn't pay licence fees, and as a result there won't be a reduction in fees for those organisations, yet those organisations will have the gambling ad restrictions applied to them. So we recognise as a government that there are different operating environments.
We wanted to make sure that in implementing this package—and it's important to look at this package as a whole—there wasn't a detriment to the coverage of women's sports, and we announced in the budget a measure to support and enhance the coverage of women's sports and niche sports. What we announced was $7½ million per year over a number of years, terminating.
Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.
In May, the minister told the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee that this deal 'might help with subscription'. Given FOXTEL is in less than one-third of Australian households, can the minister explain how it is fair that taxpayers will pay twice for women's sports programs?
It's a matter of fact that Fox Sports provides the overwhelming coverage and broadcast hours of women's sports in this country. Fox Sports is well placed, given its four dedicated channels and given its track record of covering sports with lower profiles, to deliver enhanced coverage.
To put things in perspective, the $7½ million that we've announced per year is a relatively modest amount compared to, for instance, the over $1 billion a year that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation receives. We think that this is an appropriate way to support further enhanced coverage of women's sport.
Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.
Isn't it clear that this handout is not about supporting women's sport but is nothing more than a sweetener for Foxtel to ensure its support for the government's media reform package?
I think I've outlined already that we recognise that subscription TV operates in a different environment to free-to-air broadcasting and also that the government's media reform package has a range of effects and different effects in different parts of the media sector. We also recognise that it's important to ensure that we have and continue to have good and improving coverage of women's sports and sports that might not have the profile that we might all like.
I'm quite happy to remove this, because this is not what should belong in this parliament. My question is to—
A point of order, Senator Wong?
I am awaiting the question.
Senator Hanson, your question.
My question is to Senator Brandis, the Attorney-General. Senator Brandis, in light of the national security of this nation, will you work—
You're the risk.
Order on my left.
to ban the burqa in Australia, considering—
Just a moment, Senator Hanson. I need to hear the question, so can I have some order on my left and my right. Senator Hanson, commence your question again.
In light of what is happening with national security—there have been 13 foiled national threats against us from terrorism, three that have been successful, and Australians have lost their lives. Terrorism is a true threat to our country, and many Australians are very much in fear of it. What I would like to ask on behalf of the Australian people—considering a large majority of Australians wish to see the banning of the burqa—our two former prime ministers, Julia Gillard— (Time expired).
Order on my left.
You're the risk.
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Senator Dastyari! And Senator Macdonald.
Senator Hanson, no, we will not be banning the burqa. Now, Senator Hanson, I am not going to pretend to ignore the stunt that you have tried to pull today by arriving in the chamber dressed in a burqa when we all know that you are not an adherent of the Islamic faith. I would caution you and counsel you, Senator Hanson, with respect, to be very, very careful of the offence you may do to the religious sensibilities of other Australians. We have about half a million Australians in this country of the Islamic faith, and the vast majority of them are law-abiding, good Australians. Senator Hanson, it is absolutely consistent being a good, law-abiding Australian and being a strict-adherent Muslim.
Senator Hanson, for the last four years I have had responsibility, pre-eminently among the ministers, subject to the Prime Minister, for national security policy. And, I can tell you, Senator Hanson, that it has been the advice of each Director-General of Security with whom I have worked, and each Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police with whom I have worked that it is vital for their intelligence and law enforcement work that they work cooperatively with the Muslim community. To ridicule that community, to drive it into a corner, to mock its religious garments is an appalling thing to do, and I would ask you to reflect on what you have done.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Order, senators. Senators on my left, please resume your seats. Senator Wong on a point of order?
If I could, by leave, make a very short statement.
Senator Hanson, are you objecting to leave being granted?
Yes, I am.
Leave not granted.
A point of order, Senator Wong?
My point of order is this: if I had the opportunity, I would move to congratulate the leader of the government for that statement. And I make this point on behalf of all of us on this side of the chamber: it is one thing to wear religious dress as a sincere act of faith; it is another to wear it as a stunt here in the Senate chamber.
There is no point of order. Senator Hanson, a supplementary question?
Is the Attorney-General aware that the burqa is not a religious requirement at all? Will the Attorney-General then ban the burqa in this house for the future as a security risk. Also, the fact is that the people of Australia have the right to see the face of a person that they elect to this parliament. They are the person who is actually going to be making decisions in the parliament on their behalf.
Senator Hanson, it is in the purview of the Presiding Officers, not the Attorney-General, to determine what happens as far as security is concerned within Parliament House. The Speaker and I have made arrangements that anyone who enters these premises with their face covered by whatever means is clearly identified prior to entering the building. Further, when you entered the chamber dressed as you were, I wanted to ascertain who you were and that was verified to me. I make no further comment about the dress you wore. Attorney-General, do you have a comment you wish to make in relation to that matter?
No.
Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question.
If a person wears a balaclava or a helmet into a bank or any other building or even on the floor of the court, they must be removed. Why is it not the same case for someone who is covering up their face and cannot be identified? Will the government make changes to these laws?
No.
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Will the minister please update the Senate on how the Turnbull government's No Jab, No Pay immunisation policy has increased the number of children being immunised?
I thank Senator Hume for a very appropriate, important and relevant policy question. Since 1 January 2016, under our No Jab, No Pay policy, only parents of children who are fully vaccinated or on a recognised catch-up schedule can receive the childcare benefit or the childcare rebate. Childcare payments are conditional upon all children meeting their immunisation requirements. We have made it the case that conscientious objection is no longer a valid exemption category. The only exemption now available in these circumstances is, quite rightly, a medical exemption. The Turnbull government's No Jab, No Pay policy has, I am pleased to inform the Senate, been a massive success. Thanks to No Jab, No Pay an additional 225,000 Australian children have been immunised. I invite the chamber to seriously reflect upon that achievement: thanks to this policy initiative, an additional 225,000 Australian children have been vaccinated, providing much safer conditions for those children and for many children around them.
Immunisation is an important health measure for children and their families because it is the safest and most effective way of providing protection against harmful and often deadly diseases. Parents deserve to know their children will be safe when they drop them off at child care. Parents of children too young to be immunised deserve to know that every effort is being made to make safe the community in which their children live. Parents of children who cannot be immunised for medical reasons deserve to know that every effort has been made to ensure the community in which their children live is safe. Thanks to our No Jab, No Pay policy the communities for these children are safer and lives will be saved.
Senator Hume, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for his answer. It is very encouraging. Will the minister also advise the Senate what more can be done to boost immunisation rates in Australia and protect children?
Earlier this year the Prime Minister wrote to all state premiers and chief ministers to examine the ways they can further strengthen immunisation policies around early learning enrolments and build upon the work of the Turnbull government's No Jab, No Pay policy. While our policy puts in place clear provisions in relation to the receipt of subsidies, there is more that state and territory governments can do in relation to enrolment practices in early education facilities around the country. Currently there is a patchwork of enrolment policies. But working through the health and education councils of COAG we are developing nationally consistent approaches to increase immunisation rates even further. We are pleased to see that some state and territory governments are already pre-emptively moving in this space to strengthen their policies, following the lead of the Turnbull government, acting upon the initiative of Prime Minister Turnbull and doing their bit to create a safer environment for our children.
Senator Hume, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister please update the Senate on what the Turnbull government is doing to ensure that parents are aware of the benefits of immunising their children?
Thankfully, immunisation rates in Australia are high and the vast majority of Australian parents and families do the right thing. Around 93 per cent of five-year-old children are fully vaccinated. But there remain pockets of our communities where vaccination rates are too low to meet the third immunity requirements to really have full confidence in safety. It is these areas of low coverage which pose risks to the community, especially to those people and especially those young children who may not be able to be vaccinated such as newborns or those with medical reasons.
Last weekend the Turnbull government launched the new Get the Facts about Immunisation campaign to encourage Australian parents and carers to get their kids vaccinated and to ensure that the falsehoods and the mistruths spread by antivaxxers are fully countered with an authoritative government message that makes clear the benefits of vaccination not just to your own child but to children who they may be playing with and living alongside.
Mr President, today in this chamber we have seen the most disgraceful, disrespectful and shameful behaviour, with a senator of this parliament mocking a community of decent, hardworking, law-abiding citizens of this country. There is no stronger example of why this parliament needs a parliamentary code of multicultural ethics than this. This is a proposal that has been put before this parliament before. Minister, will your government now consider adopting—
Who are you directing your question to?
Sorry, the Attorney-General. Attorney-General, will your government consider adopting a parliamentary code of multicultural ethics that is compulsory, and that would prevent the actions that we've seen in this parliament today?
Well, Senator Di Natale, I think this chamber has shown during this question time that it is perfectly able, through its own spontaneous voice, to deal with such matters.
Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.
Minister, Canada has a multicultural act. It enshrines principles of multiculturalism in legislation. Will this government consider the establishment of a multicultural act to enshrine in law protections for multicultural communities and for religious communities right across the country?
Well, Senator, we have a Racial Discrimination Act and we have protections of religious freedom. We are committed to respecting all the different communities within Australia, whatever their national or ethnic origins and whatever their religious faiths.
As far as the parliament is concerned: as I said in answer to your primary question, I think this chamber, and the other place, is well able, by its own will, to indicate its support for and respect of all faiths and cultures.
Thank you, Attorney-General. Can I use the opportunity of my final supplementary question to congratulate the Attorney-General on his strong, impassioned and personal response? And on behalf of the Australian Greens, I want to thank you for showing leadership in this chamber—leadership that is so often lacking in this parliament.
I will take that as a comment, not a question.
It should have been ruled out of order.
That is correct, Senator Macdonald; it should have been ruled out of order, but we will go to Senator Gallagher.
My question is to the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Fifield. In 2013, Prime Minister Turnbull promised every small business would have access to minimum download speeds of 25 megabits per second by the end of 2016. The latest Akamai State of the internet report revealed that peak average speeds are just 11 megabits per second, slower than speeds in Thailand, Kenya and Bulgaria. How are Australian small businesses supposed to compete globally when they are enduring some of the poorest speeds in the developed world?
I thank Senator Gallagher for the question. It is important to recognise with surveys such as the Akamai speed survey that whilst the NBN is available to 50 per cent of the nation, a majority of the nation are still on the pre-NBN network. So the Akamai survey, as a matter of logic and facts, primarily measures the pre-NBN network. What that means is the Akamai survey is really helping to make the case for our approach to see the NBN rolled out six to eight years sooner than would have been the case under those opposite, and at $30 billion less cost.
That is a gross misrepresentation!
So, of those sampled in the Akamai survey, a minority would be on the NBN.
It is also important to recognise the Akamai survey doesn't measure the technical speed capacities of lines. What it measures are the speeds that people have actually chosen to obtain. I think a number of colleagues would know something in the order of 83 per cent of people who are on the NBN have opted for speed packages of 25 megabits per second or less. Akamai doesn't measure what the particular line is capable of; it measures the package that people have actually chosen to adopt. So to present the Akamai survey as has been done by the other side and to characterise it the way it has been characterised is not an accurate reflection of the capacity of the NBN. As I say, it primarily and overwhelmingly covers the pre-NBN network.
Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question?
That's a relief. In a Herald Sun article entitled 'Australian households, businesses on NBN slam "unreliable" connection', Ms Linda Jukic, a pharmacy manager in South Hurstville, said she had to delay the installation of an EFTPOS because the NBN was so unreliable. Will the minister explain to Ms Jukic why the Prime Minister has failed to deliver on his promise?
Senator Gallagher referred to pre-2013 statements in relation to the time frame in which it was hoped the NBN could be completed. When we came into office we initiated a strategic review which determined the NBN was actually in a much worse condition as an organisation than we had thought.
Answer the question!
Since the strategic review was issued, the government has said the NBN will be completed by 2020. That is six to eight years sooner than would have been the case under those opposite. So anyone who is waiting for the NBN would have been waiting for longer if those opposite had been in office. The senator cites a particular example. I never want to diminish an experience that someone has had that isn't all that it should be.
Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question?
Will the minister give an unequivocal guarantee that every Australian small business on the copper NBN will have access to minimum speeds of 25 megabits per second by 2020?
NBN Co. is on track to deliver the NBN by 2020 to the whole nation. The mandate to NBN is that 25 megabits per second is the basic speed that people can be entitled to. It is important to recognise, however, that people can—
Guarantee it!
Mr President, this constant—I don't know what word I'll use to describe it—
A point of order, Senator Wong?
On direct relevance. Could the minister answer the question, please.
I was. Tell your colleagues to pipe down a little bit!
Order! The minister has been relevant to the question. I will ask the minister to continue.
As I was saying, the NBN is on track to be completed by 2020. The whole network will have a 25-megabit-per-second capacity but, obviously, there will be some people who opt for speed packages lower than that and some people who will opt for speed packages that are higher than that.
My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Can the minister advise the Senate how the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Guadalcanal and the sinking of HMAS Canberra have been commemorated and how important these battles were in turning the tide in the war in the Pacific?
I thank Senator Fawcett for the question. Last week I was in the Solomon Islands representing the Australian people at the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Guadalcanal and commemorations of the sinking of the HMAS Canberraoff Honiara on 9 August 1942.
The Battle of Guadalcanal was the first major offensive and victory for the Allies in the Pacific. Importantly, the allied engagement of the Japanese at Guadalcanal meant that Japan could not afford to reinforce its troops on the Kokoda Track, and therefore it provided a critical turning point for victory in the Pacific and it contributed to the ultimate defence of Australia and, may I say, of the freedoms that we hold dear.
During the Battle of Guadalcanal, Allied forces lost approximately 7,000 lives. Twenty-nine ships were sunk and 615 aircraft were shot down. Japanese forces lost almost 20,000 lives, 38 ships and 880 aircraft.
HMAS Canberra was the lead ship in an Allied screening force and was protecting the landing of US marines on Guadalcanal when it was hit multiple times in a surprise attack by a powerful Japanese naval force in the early hours of 9 August 1942. She suffered irreparable damage and, the morning after, she was scuttled. Eighty-four crew were killed in the attack, including the ship's captain, Captain Getting. A further 109 were injured. HMAS Canberra remains the largest Australian warship ever lost in battle.
I also represented the government at a very moving ceremony on board HMAS Success at the very point where the Canberra went down. Of course, when ships go down, there is no physical memorial, and therefore we have to remember them— (Time expired)
Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question.
My supplementary question to the minister is: how will Australia ensure that these events are not forgotten and that the sacrifices and courage shown by American and Australian service personnel and the people of the Solomon Islands continue to be remembered?
I have to commend the government and the people of the Solomon Islands for their commitment not just to these events but to the commemoration of those who have died. We now have a memorial to the HMAS Canberra in Honiara. We also have a monument to the brave Australian Coastwatchers and the scouts that worked so hard behind enemy lines. They provided very vital information to the Allies. It was wonderful to be there when we provided medallions in recognition of this. There was a 110-year-old scout from the Solomon Islands there to proudly receive his medal from the Australian government. I also visited a place call Bloody Ridge, which, for the marines, is hallowed ground—a significant battlefield in World War II and where the Solomon Islands government is now dedicating a national park.
Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question.
Minister, what lessons can be drawn from the Battle of Guadalcanal for present-day regional security cooperation?
Seventy-five years ago, the security of the Pacific was of vital strategic interest to Australia. We worked with our allies in the Solomon Islands and in other theatres of battle, as I said, to secure the Pacific and to secure our own defence. Whilst we do not now face the same direct military attack that we faced at those times, we do have challenges to our regional security. Those challenges now come in the form of the trafficking of drugs, unregulated and irregular fishing and, most importantly, instability. May we never again have a situation like we did in RAMSI, and that is the reason why the Australian government, together with other governments in the region, contributed to this regional force. So, as it was in World War I and World War II, the Pacific remains an important area— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. May I first congratulate you and thank you for the leadership you provided to the chamber today.
Yesterday, the wage price index was released for the June quarter, showing annual wage growth continues to languish at 1.9 per cent. Can the minister confirm that under the Turnbull government wage growth remains at the lowest levels since the index was first published in 1998?
Thank you for those gracious remarks, Senator Marshall. I can't confirm that, because I'm not familiar with the latest statistics on that particular index. What I can tell you is that we have lately enjoyed, in the last financial year, the highest jobs growth since the GFC. In the 2016-17 financial year 240,200 new jobs were created, full-time employment increased by 175,400 jobs, the participation rate increased and in the month of June alone—and this is remarkable—we had some 60,000 new jobs, full-time and part-time.
So the overall picture of the labour market is healthy. There is a real spurt in jobs growth. As you know, Senator Marshall, because I know you take an interest in these matters, healthy labour market conditions will have an effect, in due course, on the price of labour—in other words, on wages. The government is optimistic in this regard, but we are particularly pleased with the strength of the growth in jobs.
Senator Marshall, a supplementary question.
The Department of Employment historical trends data shows that in the March quarter private sector agreements wage rises fell to 2.7 per cent and in the public sector fell to 2.4 per cent. Can the minister confirm the data shows that wage rises in the private sector are at the lowest levels in a quarter of a century?
No, I can't confirm that, because, as I said to you a moment ago, I'm not familiar with that particular index, but I can confirm the overall health of the labour market, and that is the key. Let me give you some more indications of the health of the labour market. In the last six months alone, 210,800 full-time jobs have been created. That is the largest six-month increase in the labour force since the survey began, in 1978. When you have buoyant conditions in the labour market then, as I said in answer to your primary question, that will, in due course, have an effect on the price of labour, as we both know.
Senator Marshall, a final supplementary question.
Given working and middle-class Australians are already struggling with stagnant wage growth and real wage decline, why is the Turnbull government imposing an increase in the Medicare levy on eight million Australians who earn less than $87,000 a year?
What, in fact, the Turnbull government and every single one of its policies is doing is stimulating the economy to encourage the kind of jobs growth that I have been telling you about, to encourage businesses to employ more people and to encourage businesses to give businesses the capacity to pay higher wages to the employees they hire. That is why, for example, we have introduced the enterprise tax plan and front-end loaded the enterprise tax plan, so the first beneficiaries of the enterprise tax plan are the small and medium enterprises, which are the engine room of the Australian economy. So, rather than take one thing in isolation, I encourage you to look at the overall picture, because our whole suite of policies is a suite of policies designed to boost the economy and to increase prosperity and wages.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Sinodinos. Can the minister update the Senate on what the Turnbull government is doing to support a growing space industry in Australia?
Thank you, Senator Bushby, for this timely question. There are a lot of exciting things happening in Australia's space sector. Just this week, we saw the launch of Cuberider-2, which I was delighted to authorise. A payload programmed by Australian students blasted off to the International Space Station to gather data from space. It is a great thing to be talking about in this National Science Week, when we are trying to get the young people of Australia to take an interest in science, technology, engineering and maths.
The Turnbull government recognises the incredible potential of our space industry to drive investment, create jobs and position us as a global industry leader. That is why we have commissioned a review of Australia's space industry capability. It will examine the role of government in supporting a strong, competitive space industry and the best way for us to harness our industry advantages. This is not about whether we should have a space industry. We have one. This is about the framework to take the space industry to the next stage. It will support leadership, innovation, opportunity and entrepreneurship across the sector along with our broader national interests. The result of this review will be a national strategy for the sector, a strategy that reflects both our developing strengths and national interests over the next decade. An important part of the review will be establishing the case for a national space agency to act as a coordinator of space policy across the government and to act as an interlocutor on the global stage when we interact with other players so we can look them in the eye and develop the networks and the contracts which are needed to take the space industry to the next level. This will be a very important development to be able to put together a space strategy for not only the next decade but the next two decades, recognising there are many great Australians who work in the sector, including people who are working overseas who we want to bring back to Australia. (Time expired)
Senator Bushby, a supplementary question.
I am personally delighted to hear the steps that are being taken to help promote these developments in the space industry. As possibly the only member here who was part of the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the space industry—in fact, in about 2007—
An honourable senator interjecting—
I wish I could say that. We made a number of recommendations back then which have yet to be acted on, so it is great to see that they are finally being acted on.
Do you have a question?
I do have a supplementary question.
Senator Bushby, your time has expired.
Would you like to comment on that?
I'm happy to respond. I get the drift of the question. I think I know where he's going.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left! Minister, I will invite you to make any comments in response to the question you may have thought you were going it get.
I thank the honourable member for his supplementary question. I get the gist. I understand! We are witnessing a period of rapid growth and change in the space industry. No longer is the industry open to a few countries and companies capable of launching large and very expensive satellites into space. It's a global industry worth over US$300 billion a year. More and more of our daily life is dependent on space technology. It is important that we have a clear vision and strategy for our industry. But we can't make policy on the run. That's why the review is being undertaken under the direction of an expert reference group chaired by Megan Clark AC, an eminent Australian innovator and the former head of CSIRO. The review is supported by a consultation process seeking views from across industry, government and the wider community. We will be holding roundtables asking our fellow Australians about the best way forward.
Senator Bushby, a further supplementary question.
Honourable senators interjecting—
I do have a further supplementary and I'm going to do my best to keep an eye on the clock to make sure that I get an opportunity to ask it!
How does this work, as outlined by the minister, and complement the government's other space industry initiatives which are currently underway?
I thank the honourable senator for that very specific question. The current review will complement the activity already undertaken by this government to support growth in the space industry in Australia.
In October 2015, we announced a review of the Space Activities Act 1998, an act that regulates space activities undertaken by Australians here and overseas. Space technologies have advanced significantly since the act was legislated. Barriers to entry in the space industry are disappearing. This is creating new opportunities for Australian firms. So the act must provide an appropriate balance between supporting opportunities for participation and ensuring that Australia meets its international obligations.
The review of the act is now complete and the proposed amendments are being drafted. We are making sure the legislation supports innovation and the advancement of space technologies in Australia. Combined with the current review, it demonstrates our commitment, as a coalition, to the success and growth of Australian industries.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion) and the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators McAllister and Dastyari today relating to coal-fired power and to the Report to Congress on International Religious Freedom released by the United States of America Department of State.
What a performance in the Australian Senate today. What a performance! There are many days where I question why we come into this place. Often, I feel that we would be better off just staying at the bar. And there are days where things go completely crazy. To top off the insanity of what has been a truly surreal week, we saw the stunt of all stunts in this chamber by Senator Hanson.
Firstly, Senator Brandis, rightly deserves to be congratulated for his strong words and strong sentiment, and for expressing the view, rightly, that the close to 500,000 Muslim Australians do not deserve to be targeted, do not deserve to be marginalised, do not deserve to be ridiculed and do not deserve to have their faith made into some political point by the desperate leader of a desperate political party—a leader who has sitting beside her a senator who the Senate itself questions whether they should even be in this chamber in the first place.
Today was embarrassing. It was insulting; it was hurtful and it was wrong. In the same week as the United States Secretary of State, Secretary Tillerson, himself listed One Nation as a risk to religious freedom, and in the same week that we saw white nationalism rear its ugly head in the country of our closest ally, a stunt like this gets pulled in the Australian Senate. It is hurtful, it is offensive and it is wrong.
It is wrong, what's more, when we're talking about national security and the threats that are posed by extremism. Those actions and behaviours do not achieve any objective other than to make the risks and dangers in this country worse. When you pull those types of stunts, when people try to trivialise other people's faith and other people's religion for the sole purpose of a cheap headline, national security is damaged, not helped. And the idea that it is somehow appropriate to be mocking people, their faith and their values in this chamber goes to the heart of attacking what makes this country so amazing and so great.
Let's be clear: Islamic extremism is a threat and a danger, as is radical nationalism. And we need to call out extremism wherever it is. If that extremism is Islamic extremism, it should be called out. But if that extremism is the type of fascism Pauline Hanson and One Nation bring into this chamber, it should be called out as well. Extremism is wrong in whatever form it takes. Extremism is wrong when a group of white nationalists take over a city like Charlottesville in the United States of America. That is wrong, that is fascism, that is extremism, that is terrorism and it should be called out. Just as we should call out Islamic extremism, Islamic fascism, we need to call that out across the world. In the same week, even the Trump administration, in its International religious freedom report for 2016, has listed One Nation as a threat to religious freedom. We've seen extreme nationalism rear its ugly head. We don't want to see that type of extreme nationalism, that fascism, come to our country. We don't want to see it imported here. The stunt from Senator Hanson does nothing but bring out the worst of Australian society.
Today in question time we had a very sobering reminder of the power that all of us have in this place and the power our words and actions can have in our broader community. For me, it was a salutary reminder that what we do and say in this place can have a great impact in the community. The impact can either be positive, uplifting and uniting or appeal to the worst aspects of human nature. For me, question time today was a salutary reminder of that. We've seen many things in the chamber this week that have united us, where we've come together on a bipartisan basis to do good for all Australians. But we've also seen on all sides of this chamber examples where that has not occurred.
I'm very conscious that we in this place have an important responsibility to all Australians. National security, and keeping our people safe, is probably the primary responsibility of governments and parliaments in this nation. However, the freedoms and liberties of all Australians—whether enshrined in our Constitution, by precedent or by an understanding of what we hold most valuable in this place—are two competing interests. We don't have a bill of rights in our Constitution. Our founders believed we could get right in this place a balance between keeping people safe and protecting their individual freedoms.
I think some people in this place would know that I am certainly a very strong supporter of tough national security measures. I worked in this area for many years. As I've said before in this place, I have seen and smelt the consequences of terrorism. I worked with the victims of terrorism for years. So I know better than most people in this place the consequences for Australians and the reasons we need to keep them safe. But I also know that if we let fear and the worse aspects of our natures, and the worse aspects of those who would do us evil, get the better of us then we've lost the fight and lost that balance.
In relation to the issue at hand today, in relation to the burqa, I do acknowledge that, in some parts of the world, many religions, including Christianity and Islam, are taken out of context and used to inflict great harm and great evil on people. That is the case sometimes with the burqa as well. But that is a very different situation from here in Australia.
The need for identification is not an issue of religion. I think, as Senator Fierravanti-Wells has said previously, it is an agnostic issue which needs to be separated from any issue of religion. As a member of a Liberal government, I know that we believe in inalienable rights and freedom for all people and being free from interference in our daily lives. I believe that involves people's choice of clothing and how they choose to express their religious beliefs, whether it is a nun's habit, a Christian cross, or a hijab or a burqa. If women or men are wearing their clothes of choice, free from interference, coercion and persuasion and not as a means of being subjected to somebody else's will but as an empowering action for themselves, I think that we have no place telling people what they should be wearing. But, that said, the President also outlined that there are national security issues and issues with security for all of us in this chamber, and also for those in the public galleries, and I believe the measures that are being taken to establish identity without interfering with anybody's privacy are sufficient.
Further in relation to this, I'd just like to quote a little bit more from my colleague Senator Fierravanti-Wells. She said this recently:
It is always regrettable that women, especially Muslim women, are criticised or attacked for what they choose to wear. We are a free society and it is not the business of government to tell people what they should and should not wear.
(Time expired)
Before I move on to the energy part of my contribution, can I also associate my comments with those of my colleague Senator Dastyari in relation to his speech on the motion to take note of answers.
I want to move to the answers that we received from Minister Scullion to the question from Senator McAllister in relation to energy. Here we had Senator Scullion—who didn't know the context of the quotes by Mr Morrison, his own Treasurer, and who hadn't bothered to be briefed on the debate this week on resources and energy—refusing to take the first question from Senator McAllister on notice and saying that coal fundamentally has to be part of the future energy mix. When faced with the second part of the Treasurer's quote in the supplementary question, he realised that perhaps there was a change in policy and he then deferred to take that on notice. But then Minister Scullion had no answer when asked what the coalition government's position is on coal-fired power; he just took that on notice as well.
For the benefit of those who may be listening around the country, earlier this week the Treasurer, Mr Morrison—who, I have to add, kicked off 2017 by presenting a polished lump of coal in the House of Representatives and said, 'This is coal; don't be afraid'—said, 'Let's not think that there's cheap new coal; there's not,' and that the era of cheap coal-fired power is coming to an end. That's what he said earlier this week. Well, what a change of heart!
I note that the comment from the Treasurer came in the same week that the South Australian Labor government announced that a 150-megawatt solar thermal power plant would be built near Port Augusta. Construction of this exciting new project will commence next year, and the power plant will be operational by 2020. It will produce enough power to deliver five per cent of South Australia's energy needs, the equivalent of powering more than 90,000 homes, and it will be completely emissions free and produce energy at below $78 per megawatt hour.
Solar thermal technology works by using a huge mirror to concentrate sunlight onto a tower that heats molten salts. The heat created is then used to generate steam and, at this point, create power in a similar fashion to a coal-fired power station. Importantly, though, the solar thermal system can store energy for between eight and 10 hours and has no requirement for any coal or gas as a backup. The project will create more than 700 jobs in construction, with 50 full-time workers on an ongoing basis once the plant is fully operational.
The best part of this news, though, is that the South Australian government didn't pick a winner here. It didn't say, 'We love one type of energy,' as the former minister Senator Canavan has harped on about for the past year. It didn't seek to stop a company specialising in any type of energy source from submitting a tender. No, the South Australian government ran a tender process for 75 per cent of the state's power supply, and the company Solar Reserve submitted the lowest cost option over the 20-year tender period. I raise this story from South Australia because it demonstrates that it, as a government, goes through its internal processes on energy policy as it weighs up the recommendation from Professor Finkel to implement a clean energy target.
It's vital that members of the government stand up to those who seek to pick winners, and that those who support a market based economy actually defend the market. I note that this week it appeared that the Treasurer did his best to draw a line in the sand and say to Mr Abbott and Senator Canavan: 'Stop trying to pick winners,' because those winners do not stack up economically. Making these statements might make people feel good, but they drive a wedge through regional communities across our country. The people of regional Australia who work in the coal industry, in power generation and in heavy industry and whose small businesses support these industries right across this country care about reliability, price and sustainability, both in terms of economics and the environment. These people know that we need a technology-blind approach where we set our policy and then let the market decide. But at the moment we have a government with no energy policy. For a number of months, Labor has offered to work with the government to find middle ground. We want to move beyond the years of division and set in place a credible energy policy for Australia's future, to provide security, to provide jobs and, best of all, to try and provide a low-based economical cost basis for members. (Time expired).
Like my colleagues, I would like to stand today to take note of some of the things that have occurred in the Senate chamber today and the responses to it. I don't approve of Senator Hanson's stunt. There have been a range of expressions of disquiet about that today. Predominantly, my concern is that it is targeting a form of dress. I don't believe that we should be telling people what they wear, but on a security front we are reliant on good relations with all of our community, including the Muslim community, to provide information to our intelligence services. Having said that, there are three other points I would like to make.
One is about applying a common standard. We had great expressions of outrage here today about the fact that somebody wore what was seen as a religious form of dress in a manner that showed they clearly weren't of that religion and we had comments about freedom of religion and how we need to respect all religions. Yet, in this chamber, we've had comments, particularly, I have to say, from the Greens, not that the particular member who makes the comments is here at the moment—one has left the chamber, but one is still here—who frequently vilifies people of the Christian faith and other faiths who don't support his view around topics such as same-sex marriage. I don't dispute the fact that he has a right to a view on that—anyone has a right to a view on it—but to vilify somebody because of their view and to link that to their faith is, I believe, quite inappropriate. I would welcome the same degree of outrage I saw today, here, when people, on whatever side, make comments that vilify any other group of faith in this nation. Likewise, when we see somebody wear a nun's habit, for example, in something like the Mardi Gras—I'm not going to comment on whether the Mardi Gras should or shouldn't occur—if you're so outraged at what occurred here today, where is the equivalent outrage when another group or people of faith have their sense of dress, or something that is identified with their faith, mocked in a similar way? I just encourage a common standard.
The second point I would like to come to is international human rights law. The Attorney-General rightly mentioned the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I note that the Senate Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill, which looked at the intersection of human rights and religious freedom with the subject of same-sex marriage—that committee ran over Christmas and reported in February this year—noted that, unlike articles 2 and 26 of the ICCPR, on discrimination and equality, Australia has not legislated to enact in Australian law at the Commonwealth or a state level article 18, which goes to freedom of religion.
That is one of the key concerns of various faith groups, but also of people who are not of a faith group but who have a conscientious objection to a change in the definition of 'marriage', because, under our law, there is no protection for them, which is contrary to article 18. The committee found, and this was a consensus view, that Australia is not under an obligation to make a change, and that's by jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and also the European Court of Human Rights. Under international law, if you do not offend another human right then there is no legal basis to derogate a human right such as article 18. That is a significant issue which our nation needs to consider.
Lastly to the substantive point of the stunt that was pulled by Senator Hanson. We need to be careful in this country: just because we don't like the political party or the nature of the person who is raising an issue, we shouldn't disregard the substantive issue because we don't like the person who is delivering the message. I draw the Senate chamber's attention, for example, to the Kingdom of Morocco. It is a 99 per cent Muslim nation which has taken steps to ban the importation, production or sale of the burqa. They haven't banned people from wearing it, but they've taken very strict measures because they see that this is a sign of creeping extremism within the Islamic faith, and they tie it particularly to the Wahhabi stream of teaching. So even Muslim nations—people like President el-Sisi; the President of Indonesia; and those of other nations—have identified that there are concerns with extremism and the emblems that go with it. We need to be careful that we don't disregard the key issue that was raised because of who raised it.
I, too, want to support the words of Senator Dastyari. I know that when we got to the task of taking note today we were intending to focus on the first question that was asked of Senator Scullion, around power. But, obviously, some events have overtaken that, and I think they are of a serious nature. I acknowledge the comments from the Liberals, those who have so far made a contribution in this debate, and I also acknowledge the words of Senator Brandis in response to Senator Hanson's question.
I think one of the important things for me in talking about this is looking at the issue of national security. I think Senator Brandis did a good job here in response to Senator Hanson, and it is something that I also spoke about in my first speech. There is a level of bipartisanship amongst the government and opposition when it comes to dealing with issues of national security. I think the reason for that is that there are serious threats. The government takes them seriously and, indeed, as those who aspire to government the opposition does as well. Probably the most disappointing thing about what we saw today is that Senator Hanson was willing to use a stunt that would be so offensive to the Islamic or Muslim population to try to make a cheap political point around national security. There is no place or time for that to happen about something as serious as that.
I know there are a number of our armed forces serving overseas. There is no way that they are going to benefit from what we saw today in the stunt from Senator Pauline Hanson. It is not going to add to their security and it is not going to do anything for the security concerns that Australians legitimately have, given how we have been targeted so far.
I think Senator Hanson and Senator Fawcett touched on this in terms of not attacking the person. I don't think anyone has done that deliberately. But we also need to ensure that there is a strong response from the government and the opposition so that the people of Australia understand where the major parties are going to land on such an important topic as this, and the way that this chamber is used with regard to important debates such as religious freedom and national security. It is important that the Australian people see that this parliament takes those seriously.
From time to time, there will be differences of opinion from the major parties on this, but we always have those debates in a serious way, and I know that there are levels of briefing that the government and opposition are often aware of that the community aren't at the same time. The public put a lot of faith in members of parliament to ensure that they take those responsibilities around civil liberties, protecting freedoms and also getting security settings right. It would be a shame if that overwhelming consensus from the community is undermined by cheap political stunts that we saw from Senator Hanson today. In closing, I thank Senator Brandis for his comments in response and I echo the thoughts of Senator Dastyari as the first senator taking note from the Labor team.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to multiculturalism.
I rise to take note of an answer given to a question directed to Senator Brandis. Let me begin by saying firstly to the many decent, honest, law-abiding Australians who also happen to be Muslims that, on behalf of most politicians in this place, we are sorry. We are sorry that you were subjected to some of the most shameful and disrespectful mocking of your religion. People simply should not have to deal with that.
We Greens have always stood with you. We've stood with the Muslim community at a time when there is so much fear and hatred directed towards you, but what we learnt today was that it's not just the Greens who stand with you. Indeed, we saw the overwhelming majority of this parliament come together and rise as one to say that such behaviour should never be tolerated. I believe that's a sentiment that most of the Australian community also feel. To the children, the families, the men and women, the people who are Muslim right around the country: please know that we are with you right now.
Let me also say that in a short while the Senate Select Committee on Strengthening Multiculturalism will table its report. Without pre-empting the findings of that report, let me make it clear that the Australian Greens are strong advocates of a code of multicultural ethics that would effectively give every single person in this place a framework around what is appropriate and what is completely inappropriate when it comes to mocking someone's religious background or cultural background.
We think the time has come to ensure that every member of this parliament signs up to a code that demonstrates what true Australian values are about. True Australian values include respecting diversity, celebrating our differences and recognising that mocking somebody on the basis of cultural and religious difference is never acceptable. The responsibility of each and every one of us in this chamber is to lead by example. On that note, let me again congratulate the Attorney-General for showing such leadership at an important moment, because it's not just the response to Senator Hanson that was important; it was the response to the entire Muslim community across Australia that was just so important. They need to know that those were the views of a hateful, ignorant, bigoted individual and they are not views that are shared by the parliament or, indeed, the Australian community.
We Greens believe it's time to establish a multicultural act: legislation that effectively demonstrates our commitment to multicultural Australia. Canada has done it. We think it is so important that Australia does it—particularly now, at a time when we see this sort of hatred and bigotry within our community. Of course, it should be part of something broader. We think it needs to be part of a charter of human rights. We will be strongly advocating for legislation to protect all cultural, religious, political and other freedoms in this place.
As part of the work of the Senate Select Committee on Strengthening Multiculturalism, we also heard about how important it is to ensure that people who come to this country get the support that they need through job service providers in the form of flexible learning of English language skills. And we, as a country, have a tradition of doing those things extremely well.
What those comments today from Senator Hanson highlight is the critical need to educate the Australian community around the values of respect and inclusion, and what better place to start than within our school system? That's why we support the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, in consultation with government and non-government authorities, introducing an intercultural curriculum to all primary and secondary students so that they can learn about other religions and cultures and, hopefully, grow up in an environment where they aren't making decisions and statements on the basis of prejudice and ignorance.
Finally, let me say once again that we, the Australian Greens, will always stand up for individuals who are honest, decent and law-abiding people. We think that the Australian Muslim community makes a great contribution to this nation and we celebrate that contribution.
Question agreed to.
Senators, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 15 August of this year of the Hon. Brian Francis Gibson AM, a senator for the state of Tasmania from 1993 until 2002, and, during this time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 15 August 2017, of the Honourable Brian Francis Gibson, AM, places on record its gratitude and admiration for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Brian Francis Gibson was born in Ascot Vale in Victoria on 4 November 1936. He was the eldest of 10 children of Kingsley Melbourne Gibson and his wife Agnes. After completing his secondary education at St Patrick's College in Ballarat, Brian followed his father into a career in forestry, undertaking further study by way of a Bachelor of Science in Forestry and a Bachelor of Arts at the University of Melbourne. From 1957 until 1972 he worked with the Forests Commission of Victoria, and it was during his early years with the commission that he married Pauline Veronica James, with whom he had three children, Sharon, Kieran and David.
The beginning of Brian's association with Tasmania came in 1972 when he was recruited by the paper and pulping firm Australian Newsprint Mills in the town of Boyer. Before taking up this new role, however, Brian travelled to Jamaica with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to lend his expertise to a forestry project in that nation. Returning to Tasmania, he went on to serve as Managing Director of Australian Newsprint Mills from 1980 to 1989 and as President of the National Association of Forest Industries from 1987 to 1991. These were years during which the polarising disputes between conservationists and the Tasmanian forestry sector were particularly acute, and Brian's time at the helm of the industry's peak advocacy body no doubt coloured his views on the impediments to his state's future prosperity. He was no friend of the Greens. In his maiden speech, he lamented the fact that, although the environmental movement had successfully widened our understanding of the need for environmental consciousness, unfortunately the extremists of the movement had been successful in creating unnecessary concern about particular issues, and the political decisions which had arisen had done great harm to our economy and the investment climate.
Brian Gibson won preselection by the Tasmanian division of the Liberal Party and was elected to the Senate at the 1993 federal election, taking the place of the retiring Liberal senator for Tasmania, Shirley Walters, whose death we mourned only recently. In his maiden speech in this place, Brian paid tribute to the significant contributions of his predecessor but sought to assure his colleagues that they 'should not expect the same frequency of interjections from this seat', an assurance which I am sure all honourable senators who served with him would agree he lived up to. But that did nothing to diminish the significance of his contribution to the parliament. He was an exquisitely polite man.
At 56 years of age, Brian had already had an enormously successful career in business when he took his place in this chamber. He had been chief executive of Australian Newsprint Mills for nearly a decade and was also an independent director of several large corporations, including being chairman of the Hydro-Electric Commission. In 1988, he had been appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for his services to the forestry industry. Being responsible for managing Australian Newsprint Mills, one of Australia's few internationally competitive manufacturers in that sector, was, Brian observed, 'a good position from which to observe and understand the Australian economy'. In his maiden speech he made no secret of his intention to use his precious time in this place directing his energies towards reforming the economy and the business of government. It was microeconomic reform in particular which was for Brian an issue of moral concern, for he was adamant that it was only through increased productivity, together with fiscal restraint, that Australia could remain prosperous—wise words, indeed—not, as he insisted, for ourselves but for our children and their children, 'so that they have options available to them to devote what they wish to leisure, to the arts and to the environment, to those less well off in the world'.
Drawing upon a lifetime of managerial and business experience, Brian Gibson quickly established a reputation within the Liberal Party as a forceful and well-informed advocate for economic reform. Just 10 months into his first term, in May 1994, he was appointed parliamentary secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Richard Alston, and from December 1994 he served as parliamentary secretary to the shadow Treasurer, Peter Costello. Reflecting on his time in parliament in the twilight of his Senate career, Brian Gibson identified his time in opposition as among the most productive years in which he was able to apply his economic and business expertise to the broad scope of significant legislative change then being pursued by the Keating government. Based on his reflections, it is clear that he saw himself as an economic reformist first and a partisan politician second, and he noted that he was proud to play a part in the formulation of national competition policy and the work of the newly minted Productivity Commission.
Following John Howard's election victory in 1996, Brian Gibson joined the first Howard government as Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, a particularly important role for a newly elected government determined to embark upon a course of significant economic reform. He had responsibility, among other things, for the corporations law and the Australian Securities Commission, as it was then known.
However, sadly, his time in the ministry was short lived. In October 1996, just seven months into the life of the Howard government, the Prime Minister formed the view, on a strict reading of his new code of conduct, that Brian should resign from the ministry because it had been revealed that he had signed a statutory instrument related to banking which affected a bank in which he held a small parcel of shares but by which he could not, in any way, have gained advantage. I had cause some years into my Senate career to reflect on the circumstances that led to Brian Gibson's resignation and the foreshortening of what would have been a very significant career in executive government at the forefront of economic reform. I gave a speech on the subject of ministerial responsibility to the ANU College of Law, and I recalled that many thought at the time that Brian Gibson's dismissal was unwarranted in the circumstances, but those were the early days of the government, and the Prime Minister was no doubt concerned to reinforce the public perception that his new code of conduct was unforgiving in its strictness. Subsequently, amendments were made which would allow an appropriate flexibility without compromising its purpose—to some extent, no doubt, in response to the injustice of the Gibson case.
As I also said about the circumstances of Brian Gibson's resignation, no suggestion of dishonesty was made by anyone, because such a suggestion would have been risible. A more careful, more honest, more punctilious man than Brian Gibson it would have been impossible to know. And it is a great tragedy that an overzealous application of that document by a then inexperienced Prime Minister had that effect. The view I then expressed and express again today would, I think, be shared by virtually everyone, including, I dare say, Mr Howard himself.
The injustice of Brian Gibson's resignation was taken up again by many of his Senate colleagues on the occasion of his valedictory, as was the characteristic stoicism that he had displayed in the aftermath. Reflecting on the episode, Senator Boswell observed that the dignity with which Brian exited the front bench will go down as one of the highlights of his career. A lesser person could have said: 'That's enough; I've had a gutful. You go and do it yourself now.' But he did not. He 'knuckled down and made a considerable contribution'. But perhaps the most poignant reflection on Brian Gibson's contribution to this place came from a political foe and a former senator who would be familiar to many in this place, none other than the Hon. Stephen Conroy, who said of Brian, simply, that his resignation was Australia's loss.
I had a personal association with Brian Gibson, relatively fleeting, but one that meant a lot to me. When I was first elected to the Senate, some 17 years ago, I had the good fortune to be allocated a seat beside Senator Gibson, up there where he and I sat, where Senator McKenzie and Senator Canavan currently sit. The coalition in those days had the practice of seating new senators beside older, more experienced senators. We'd not met before, and our association was relatively brief because he resigned from the Senate in February 2002. But, in the less than two years during which I got to know Brian Gibson, particularly as a new and inexperienced and enthusiastic younger senator, he was very kind to me, and he was very patient with me. As I said, a more honest, fussy, punctilious gentleman you would never hope to meet.
Brian Gibson resigned from the Senate in February 2002 to return to the world of business, in which he had achieved such notable success in his prepolitical life. It is worthy of note that, at the time he served in this chamber, he was probably the most experienced senior businessperson to sit in the parliament, and the loss of all of that commercial experience was itself a tragedy. In his postpolitical life, he served on the board of the Australian Stem Cell Centre and as a director of the Australian National Maritime Museum, among other positions.
Brian Gibson was an astute businessman, a capable parliamentarian, a cherished and honourable colleague and a devoted husband and father. He came to this place at the peak of his career. He gave significant service in policy development in a complex field to which he brought almost unique expertise, and, after the political mishap that befell him, he left in good grace and high esteem. On behalf of the government, I offer my sincere condolences to his loved ones.
I rise on behalf of the opposition to join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate and acknowledge the passing of former senator and parliamentary secretary Brian Francis Gibson AM, who passed away this week. At the outset, I convey our condolences to Mr Gibson's family and friends. He was a senator for 8½ years and, considering his contribution, particularly in the context of economic policy, I think it is reasonable to say he was unfortunate not to have had the opportunity to contribute for a longer period as a member of the executive. However, his contribution as a leader in both public and private enterprise and his work as a senator means his legacy stands tall, particularly in economic policy.
Born in Victoria, Mr Gibson's professional career was in the forest and forestry products sector. Initially an employee of the Forests Commission Victoria between 1957 and 1972, it was a job opportunity with Australian Newsprint Mills in the Derwent Valley that saw him cross Bass Strait and make Tasmania his home. I note that prior to taking up this position he fulfilled his commitment to using his professional skills for greater economic and social good by working for the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations on a forestry project in Jamaica.
In 1980 he became managing director of Australian Newsprint Mills, a position he held until 1989, and he also served between 1987 and 1991 as the President of NAFI, the National Association of Forest Industries, an organisation with which I have some familiarity and which has played a prominent role in Tasmania's forest debates over many years. He was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia for his contribution to the industry in 1988. It was his professional and managerial experience that led the Tasmanian government to appoint him as the chairman of Tassie hydro in 1989. He would serve on the commission at a time when it was attempting to modernise to meet the challenges posed by the impending introduction of the National Competition Policy, coincidentally a policy which accorded with his views on microeconomic reform.
As the Leader of the Government has said, Mr Gibson was elected to the Senate in 1993, replacing the late Shirley Walters. Re-elected in 1998, he served until 2002. He immediately indicated his interests and demonstrated his expertise in economic affairs by making a first speech that repudiated the protectionist policies that he described as the legacy of Alfred Deakin. He decried the way such policies had inculcated, in his words, 'an inward-looking attitude within a high proportion of Australians that so many believe they do not have to be internationally competitive'. He went on to speak about the links between investment and microeconomic reform. He also advocated for major efficiency gains within the budget sector of government in order to reduce the taxation burden on individuals and business so that people would be encouraged to work harder, to save and to invest.
Given his views, it is unsurprising he associated himself with what is known as the Modest Members group of parliamentarians, who championed fiscal responsibility and accountability. He also found a place with conservative senators and members connected by a shared Christian faith. He served on many parliamentary committees. I won't list them all but I do note in particular the role he played as chair of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee and of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. As we know, the legislation committees play an important role in our Senate and, in particular, in the estimates process. Senator John Faulkner, who spent a fair amount of time in the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee in particular had this to say about him:
But in relation to Brian Gibson, I do want to say something quite genuinely. Brian Gibson was one of the best chairs of a parliamentary committee I have seen. He was a very good chair of an estimates committee basically because he understood politics—that was the difference. It was really crucial.
However, as Senator Brandis has referenced, by far and away Mr Gibson's overarching contribution throughout his time in the Senate was in the area of economic policy. He came to this place with well-formed views about the place of government in the economy and the reforms he saw as necessary to lift the productivity of the Australian economy. His arrival was timely, as it coincided with a period of economic reform: the Keating government's own push for microeconomic reform. Then, of course, his career also flowed on to the Howard government's election and the changes that government sought and achieved for the tax system.
First in opposition and then in government, Brian Gibson articulated three fundamental reforms to the budget process. These were the application of an accrual accounting method to Commonwealth budgets; the appointment of a National Commission of Audit to report on Commonwealth finances and to lay out mid-term economic priorities; and the introduction of a Charter of Budget Honesty because he wanted governments to be held properly to account for their fiscal and economic policies. It says something about Mr Gibson's contribution that two of those have become the practice of the Commonwealth. Of course, the National Commission of Audit is something the previous governments have utilised. It is a testament to the way in which Brian Gibson made use of the opportunities presented to him by the parliament—such as through the Public Accounts Committee and as a member of the Select Committee on Functions, Powers and Operation of the Australian Loan Council—as well as within his parliamentary party that all three of these reforms were enacted during his time in the parliament.
Brian Gibson was a natural choice for the role of Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer following the election of the Howard government in 1996. He initiated overhauls in corporate law and administration, including corporate law simplification and reform. Senator Brandis has outlined in some detail the professional disappointment associated with his resignation after 10 months.
Brian Gibson went on to chair a government members' taskforce on taxation reform and to assist in the public consultation process on the new taxation system. His role in the development of what became known as the A New Tax System package, best known for the introduction of the goods and services tax, is another lasting contribution to public policy, notwithstanding our political differences on that policy. He described these measures as 'probably the most important bills with regard to the structure of the economy of Australia that this parliament has seen for many a long day'. Brian Gibson left the Senate on his own terms in 2002 and went on to serve as an executive and board member in the private and public sector.
Brian Gibson's political career was not long, but he made a substantial contribution. Any reading of his involvement at the forefront of many of the significant economic policy reforms of the mid to late 1990s shows a legacy that has endured. Perhaps most of all, he will be remembered as someone who stood by his principles both in ideology and in personal integrity. To leave politics with a reputation for dignity and honesty is something to which we would all aspire. On behalf of the opposition, I extend our deepest sympathies to Brian Gibson's family, friends and former colleagues at this time.
The life of the Hon. Brian Francis Gibson AM was one of understated achievement, commitment and service. For those of us on the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team on whose behalf I have the privilege of speaking this afternoon, can I say we had the privilege of working with him. We had the privilege of interacting with and learning from a man of principle, a man of deep knowledge, experience, understanding and wisdom.
Brian's many positions and achievements that have been fully detailed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in anybody's language, is an impressive list. It needs to be understood that this list of achievements, appointments and positions was not just about padding out a CV. He devoted himself heart and soul to each task that he undertook. The understated nature of Brian is highlighted by the fact that his arrival in Canberra after the 'unlosable' election—which our side of politics went on to lose—was hardly recognised other than as a welcome new face rather than being recognised for the hotbed of policy talent and experience which was so sorely needed at the time.
It was through his friend former President Paul Calvert that the leadership was alerted to his wealth of capacities. Once realised, those talents were immediately and effectively harnessed as he helped develop the policies in opposition and at the beginning of the new Liberal government which ushered in and heralded the golden decade of 1996 to 2007.
His integrity was beyond question, yet an overly prescriptive and, quite frankly, senseless interpretation of ministerial standards saw him resign. As many said at the time, if there is a standard which requires Brian's resignation, I would back Brian any day over the particular requirement.
Brian just recently received a call from former Prime Minister Howard, who had learned of Brian's severe ill health. That was a call that Brian genuinely appreciated. It's an indication of former Prime Minister Howard's genuineness and the high regard in which John Howard held Brian Gibson.
His interest in public policy and political matters remained with him till the end. I, for one, was the beneficiary of numerous phone calls from him. I indeed met with Brian for a coffee as recently as 22 June, when he spoke realistically about his health challenges and stark prognosis, yet he did so with thankfulness for the extra decade of good living with which he had been blessed after a grim diagnosis with a different issue a decade earlier. His particular condition then was well treated and contained through the application of cutting-edge treatment. Regrettably, as one form of illness was being effectively treated, another was quietly taking hold of Mr Gibson, undetected, and ultimately claimed his life. On behalf of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team, I express the condolences of the team to his lovely and supportive wife, Pauline, and his three children and thank him for his unselfish service to our state and nation. May he rest in peace.
I too want to associate myself with the remarks that my leader and other speakers have made about Brian Gibson. I served with him in all the time he was here, and he was a real gentleman—perhaps unsuited to being in parliament because he was such a gentleman. But he was such a capable man.
I continue to be distressed at the way Brian was sort of forced out of the parliament—not, I might say, by the opposition but by his own team. The incident which was the catalyst for that was at a crazy time in our political history. Brian Gibson was as honest as any person who has ever worked in this chamber could be, and the fact that he was required through political pressure to resign over a very minor technical infringement has distressed me ever since. Brian was a person who could have made such a real contribution to Australian life. He had made a significant contribution to his own state and his own community in what he did in his pre-parliamentary life, and it is just one of those great shames of life and politics, I guess, that someone who could have made such a great contribution had such a short time here. But, in the short time he was here, he certainly captured the friendship of everyone. Everyone acknowledged him as a very significant contributor to the debate and the works of this parliament and of government.
Mr President, I don't have the authority to do this, but I'm sure I can say it if others perhaps haven't mentioned it: I know that former Presidents Calvert and Ferguson would want to be associated with this condolence motion as well. Unfortunately, they are all at the other end of the country from me, but, as Senator Abetz and other Tasmanians would know, former Senators Calvert, Ferguson and Gibson were a bit of a trio around the country doing various things in retirement.
Playing golf.
Playing golf! Well, I'll say 'doing things'—playing golf. I think they did a bit of fishing as well.
Along with Warwick Parer.
Along with Warwick Parer—and Bill Taylor I think might have been part of that crew as well. But I do know that the two former presidents were very close to Brian and would want to be associated with the motion as well.
My condolences to Pauline and to all of the family and extended family. I appreciate you've lost a husband, a very, very close friend and a father, but we as Australians have lost someone who did make and, regrettably, could have made a much greater contribution to public life in our country. Brian, rest in peace.
Could I ask senators to rise and to signify their assent to the motion by standing with me in silence.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
I seek leave to move a motion relating to the deaths of two remarkable Australians, Mr Yami Lester OAM and Dr G Yunupingu.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate records its sincere condolences at the deaths, on 21 July 2017 of Mr Kunmanara Lester OAM, and on 25 July 2017 of Dr G Yunupingu, places on record its gratitude and admiration for their service to the nation, and tenders its profound sympathy to their family and community in their bereavement.
I rise on behalf of the coalition government to pay respects and provide sincere condolences to the families, friends and communities of two remarkable men, two First Australians, who have each made such a difference to the nation through their own respective life paths. Today the Senate pays respects to the outstanding and remarkable contributions of Dr G Yunupingu and Mr Yami Lester. Perhaps what is most striking is that both of these men lived a life without sight, but certainly not without insight and vision, for these two men saw and strived for a better future for their people using both words and action.
I was incredibly saddened by the news of Dr G Yunupingu's passing, having had the delight of spending time with him in very different circumstances to most people, on his country. In my previous life as a commercial fisherman, I and my young family at the time spent many years around Dr G Yunupingu's country, around his home, particularly on the northern end of Elcho Island. I consider myself blessed to have been able to know this man on his country, when many would see he was most himself.
In fact, I learned that, despite being born blind, Mr G Yunupingu was a great optimist and a man who made the best of everything. He was a hero of his people and his community and a champion of the Indigenous music industry. In fact, he was a champion of the Australian music industry, taking Indigenous music and Australian culture to the world. Learning to play the guitar from an early age, Dr G Yunupingu joined the acclaimed Yothu Yindi band as a teenager. This band changed the Australian music industry for the better and, more importantly, changed the psyche of our nation through its thought-provoking songs and powerful lyrics. This music compelled you to listen. It was music that made all who heard it stop and listen, to listen and learn.
Dr G Yunupingu's uncle, senior Gumatj elder Djunga Djunga Yunupingu, is reported to have told the crowd at the National Indigenous Awards last week that Dr G Yunupingu 'built a bridge between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia with his music. Both Yolngu and Balanda walking together hand in hand—two laws, two people, one country.' These words speak to the moving and reconciling impact of the life Dr G Yunupingu lived, which, sadly, was all too short. The coalition government and this parliament recognise kidney disease as an important health condition impacting too greatly on our first Australians. Recognising this, we have invested in significant renal services, including dialysis, and we will continue to push for improved services for Territorians.
Dr G Yunupingu's achievements over his life have left a legacy in the music industry. He will remain one of Australia's most treasured music artists, described by the Prime Minister as a remarkable Australian who shared Yolngu language with the world through music. Dr G Yunupingu stands among the many Yolngu leaders who have gone before him, including those who were signatories of the Yirrkala bark petitions that were tabled in Parliament this very week back in 1963. Family, friends, fellow Territorians, fans and followers will mark Dr G Yunupingu's life and provide a final farewell on Tuesday, 19 September at the Darwin Convention Centre.
Today the Senate also provides its sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mr Yami Lester OAM, who passed away on 21 July 2017. Born in the early 1940s in the APY Lands, on Granite Downs Station in the far north of South Australia, Yami, a Yankunytjatjara man, would go on to live a legacy of leadership that our country acknowledges with sincerity. The stature of Mr Lester's leadership was demonstrated in all he did, including as first chair of Pitjantjatjara Council, regional councillor, zone commissioner, driving force of the Institute of Aboriginal Development and chair of the Nganampa Health Council.
Mr Lester is a man who rose from personal tragedy. He was tragically blinded as a young man as a result of the black mist from the nuclear bomb test that blew through his homelands in South Australian when he was only a child. In the decades that followed, Mr Lester's passion was to fight for justice and restoration for his people and rightful recognition. He was courageous and persistent. He succeeded in delivering better outcomes for the community he served—for land rights, the health of his people, education, language and culture. He fought for a better future, better health, better education and better jobs.
In all of this, he demonstrated the power of his influence in bringing about major change. At the state funeral, which I attended with my colleagues Senator Dodson and the member for Lingiari from the other place, I spoke with Mr Lester's son, Leroy, who shared with me his father's passion about improving school attendance in his own community. Mr Lester knew the benefits education can bring not only to his people but to all Australians. His record of achievement has left a legacy of better outcomes for his community, his people and his nation. Mr Lester advocated for the Pitjantjatjara land rights act. He was part of the historic handover of Uluru-Kata Tjuta,and we remember how he stood alongside Governor-General Sir Ninian Stephen in 1975 and interpreted speech. He tirelessly advocated for the McMillan royal commission into the British nuclear test that later saw his people compensated.
Mr Lester's leadership created a legacy that will not be forgotten. He will be remembered as a man of great strength, intelligence, courage and great kindness. The Prime Minister has described Yami as an extraordinary Australian whose courageous life will be remembered forever.
Both Yami Lester and Dr G Yunupingu leave behind loving families and a nation that is better off for their contribution and worse off for their passing. We the Australian government commemorate the remarkable lives they lived and pay respect to the legacy they leave. Vale Dr G Yunupingu and Yami Lester.
Today I rise to commemorate the memory of two great Indigenous Australians who have passed since the last sitting of the Senate—Mr Yami (Kunmanara) Lester and Dr G Yunupingu, two blind Aboriginal men who had a vision for Australia. Despite their physical impairment they were far-seeing and insightful, and their lives give testament to their strength and resilience. From humble beginnings in remote and isolated parts of our continent, one in the desert, the other in the saltwater country, they changed our nation for the better.
Of the two men, I knew Yami Lester the better. I am proud to call him a friend, a leader and a mentor. Last week, thanks to the generosity of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, I was privileged to attend his state funeral in the remote South Australian community of Walatina. Very few state funerals have occurred in a place so remote. The hearse, a Land Cruiser embellished with flowers, stopped at a dry creek crossing. Senior women travelling with his body took the opportunity to point to the dry creek bed at Walkinytjanu, in the middle of the desert, where Mr Lester was born.
While we waited for the Governor, the Premier, the South Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition and other dignitaries we had a chance to feel the power of the simple birthplace, under the gum trees in the red sand, at a soakage in the desert. Not far from that creek crossing, at Maralinga, when Yami Lester was a 12-year-old, the British government, in collusion with our Australian government, exploded a series of atomic weapons. A black mist rolled over their lands, hurting the eyes of this young boy. After a relatively short period of time he became blind. He believed this was as a direct result of this evil mist. He spent six or so years in a home in Adelaide, where only a younger person spoke his language, Yankunytjatjara. He became a 'broomologist', as he used to say, making brooms in the Adelaide school for the blind.
As an adult, with his wife Lucy, he moved to Alice Springs, where I came to know him and learn from his wisdom and insight into life and politics. He became a leader of Aboriginal organisations there. With the late Reverend Jim Downing he established the Institute for Aboriginal Development, promoting Aboriginal language and culture against the grain of assimilation and forced social and cultural change. They developed practical measures to assist families living in poverty and worked to reduce infant mortality by helping people to understand the causes of poor health and disease.
I recall giving a speech in Alice Springs on a topic I've now forgotten. Yami pulled me up in the middle of the speech and said words that I took to heart. He said: 'You're a smart young man but you have to make a picture-book for me in your speech; you need to paint a picture, so that I can see what you are talking about!' He was a leader in the struggle to establish Aboriginal controlled and managed organisations in Central Australia; to get recognition of land rights in South Australia; to get Uluru and Kata-Tjuta National Parks returned to traditional owners; and to establish a royal commission into the Maralinga tests. In all of these struggles his wisdom, courage, determination and commitment were tempered by a wicked and irrepressible sense of humor and an infectious delight in life. He was a mad supporter of the Melbourne Football Club. This man, who could not see, showed us a vision of a reconciled Australia and led us on that path.
To his family—Lucy, Leroy, Rosemary and Karina—we express our thanks to you for allowing him to share his time with so many of us. We wish you well in your future. At his funeral service, we were moved by the singing of Paul Kelly, whose song Maralinga told the story of Mr Lester.
Paul Kelly also worked with the second blind man I wish to commemorate today, Dr G Yunupingu, who brought his beautiful, ethereal voice, in his Yolngu language, to people across the world. He was born on Elcho Island in the Northern Territory. As his song says, 'I was born blind. I don't know why.' Dr G Yunupingu grew up in Galiwinku, the settlement on Elcho Island, off the north coast of Australia, which is over 500 kilometres north-east of Darwin. Being blind, he spent his youth with his family absorbed in the Methodist mission environment, and become immersed in the world of music. He was a member of the famous Yothu Yindi band, whose classic song Treaty still resonates today, and the Saltwater Band. It was his solo albums that brought him fame and worldwide acclaim. His amazing voice was complemented by the cello playing of his collaborator, friend and translator, Michael Hohnen. Dr G Yunupingu performed for Her Majesty the Queen and for President Barack Obama, but it was the way in which his songs and music brought Yolngu culture and ideas into the minds of so many Australians that is his great gift to us all.
Dr G Yunupingu's uncle—as the minister has said—senior Gumatj leader David Djunga Djunga Yunupingu, told the crowd in Darwin that his nephew had built a bridge between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians with music, but died before the country was truly at peace. He said:
He left us without knowing his place in this nation, without knowing true unity for all Australians.
Both men died, in part, due to kidney disease. Dr Yunupingu had suffered from liver and kidney diseases for many years. He was just 46 years of age. Mr Lester died from end-stage renal failure. He made the choice not to move from his home in Walatinna to Alice Springs for dialysis, allowing the disease to take him on his home country. We've lost two great Aboriginal Australians to the scourge of renal disease. In this place we must mark the passing of these great Australians by committing ourselves to doing more to eradicate this epidemic.
It was with great sadness that I learned of the passing within days of each other of Mr Lester and Mr G Yunupingu. Both men have made such a great contribution to this country. I should say that Scott Ludlam would like to be here today to talk about and share his condolences for Mr Lester, because he worked with Mr Lester and other anti-nuclear campaigners to get justice and to campaign against the nuclear industry. I think it was very fitting, and I'm so pleased, that Mr Lester got to see the commitment to the expansion of the gold card to those affected by the nuclear tests, in the budget in May. I'm really pleased that he got to see that because he campaigned for such a long time for justice, for the people who are affected by the radiation from the British nuclear tests in Maralinga. At least he got to see that. It is a shame that Scott isn't here to also add to the condolences. Mr Dave Sweeney, who is a very well-known anti-nuclear campaigner and who worked with Mr Lester for a very long time, said of his passing:
We owe him a great debt because he faced adversity with understated courage, with humility, with humour, with great strength.
In a world without nuclear threats and risks Mr Lester would have been a great stockman. In a world with nuclear threats and risks he would crack his whip loud, hard, sharp and constant to sound a different alarm.
Mr Lester made it part of his life's work to fight for people affected by nuclear testing and to campaign for Indigenous land rights, and we've just heard today what a success he made of that and what a difference he made. Vale, Mr Lester, and our condolences go out to his family and friends.
Mr G Yunupingu—what a huge contribution he made to Australia and the world, sharing his music with the world. It was such beautiful music which made such strong statements, such heartfelt statements, and enabled people to understand his culture through his words and his music. His music is a lasting contribution to this country. I was at Garma just a couple of weeks ago, where his legacy was celebrated and his passing very strongly felt. You could feel it everywhere over the weekend at the time of Garma.
I just want to add, very briefly, to the comments that Senator Dodson just made around kidney disease and the need to address kidney disease in this country, given the impact it has had on these two great Aboriginal Australians. People are aware that this has been discussed extensively in this chamber, and we need to keep talking about it until it gets the attention that it needs and we stop the going backwards and forwards between the state and territories and the Commonwealth about who pays for what. It absolutely needs to be addressed. The causes need to be addressed, so that we don't get to the point where we need end-stage treatment such as dialysis. These two men's legacies will constantly remind us of that.
Vale, Dr G Yunupingu and, as I said, the Greens add their condolences to this motion. I should also say thank you to Minister Scullion and Senator Dodson who ensured that we do get to commemorate these two great men in this chamber.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
I table a statement relating to the building condition of Parliament House, Australian Parliament House Condition Summary.
by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to China, which took place on 26 June to 1 July 2017. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document.
Leave granted.
I move
That the Senate take note of the document.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave granted.
I was very privileged to have the opportunity to travel to China as part of a cross-party delegation, along with my colleague Senator Smith, who I think will speak on this shortly as well. This was a delegation that took place for about five days in June-July, led by the Speaker, Mr Tony Smith. The main purpose of the delegation was a continuation of a parliamentary dialogue that has been underway between the Australian and Chinese parliaments for a number of years now.
As someone who had not previously been to China, this was obviously a fascinating experience. It was only a brief delegation, and it only managed to visit Beijing and Shanghai, but, as I had been forewarned by many people who have travelled to China, the scale of development that you see when visiting these cities is quite astonishing.
I think, if you speak to any foreign policy expert in Australia, pretty much everyone recognises that there is no country that is going to be more vital to the shaping of our region in the years ahead than China, so this delegation was a very important opportunity for Australian parliamentarians to get a better understanding of some of the issues between our two nations, some of the issues that we will need to work on together, and to get a sense of what the Chinese government and Chinese people see as priorities for their relationship with our country.
As usually occurs in these delegations, the delegation did have a number of different meetings that spanned business, trade, politics and culture. We learnt a lot from the experience through a variety of meetings with representatives of the Chinese government, including the third-most senior member of the Chinese government, who is the chair of the National People's Congress. We also had some extremely interesting meetings with Chinese businesses, including one business that I will single out—JD.com—that I've been describing as a Chinese version of Amazon. It is quite remarkable to see the scale of operations of online retail and the services sector in China going forward.
As I mentioned, the key focus of this delegation was the sixth meeting of the China-Australia bilateral parliamentary exchange, where we had an opportunity to meet our counterparts in the Chinese parliament and discuss issues of mutual interest, ranging from foreign policy and security to trade, law and justice issues. Clearly, from the number of times that it was raised during this delegation, the Chinese government's initiative—the Belt and Road Initiative—is an extremely high priority for the Chinese people and the Chinese government. I know that the Australian government has shown some interest in participating in this initiative, through the attendance of Minister Ciobo at a conference concerning it earlier this year.
That is one example of the immense opportunities that still lie ahead for Australian businesses and Australian workers through deeper engagement with China. Obviously there are many Australian businesses that have already taken advantage of these opportunities, and I think it's probably a little bit tempting at times to wonder whether we've already seen the peak of China's development and the peak of the economic opportunities. But I certainly left this delegation very much convinced that we've only really seen the beginning.
As a Queensland senator, one of the things that I have been thinking about—both during this delegation and subsequently—is that my own home state has done very well from the boom in China over recent years, when we think about commodity exports, whether they be coal, other minerals, or agricultural products. I think it's very important that all Australian governments, whether we're talking about the Commonwealth government or our state governments, including my own in Queensland, really apply themselves to thinking about how we can take advantage of the incredible growth that lies ahead in Chinese consumption.
As I said, the business that we visited, JD.com, really gave an indication of the kind of trade in services and products that is still available. As we see the continued growth in China, I want to make sure that businesses in my own home state are adequately geared up to take advantage of these opportunities. We're already doing some great work in increasing the number of Chinese tourists visiting Australia and the number of students from China who are visiting and being educated in Australia. But there are a lot more opportunities ahead, and I want to make sure we're all focusing on them.
I'm pleased to follow Senator Watt. I also participated in the Australian parliamentary delegation to China, and in the very, very few moments available to me, I would like to reflect on what an insightful and important visit it was. It comes at a critical time, but not just for my state's development—of course, the modern prosperity of Western Australia has been well and truly built on the back of Chinese growth, but, more importantly, our agricultural sector enjoys great prosperity as a result of strong trade between Western Australian agriculturalists and China.
Of course, it comes at a very important time because the geopolitical landscape is changing. As a nation, we must be prepared to manage what will be difficult and complex issues in regard to our relationship with China. Close and particular attention on managing human rights issues both inside China and between China and its neighbours is a critical issue for me and, I know, for other senators in this place. In conclusion, can I just thank Senator—
Debate interrupted.
Today I rise to continue my remarks on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Executive Remuneration) Bill 2017. The purpose of this bill is to put downward pressure on excessive salaries paid at Australia Post and the National Broadband Network, NBN. I have always intended that this bill would start the process to reduce excessive salaries paid by the taxpayer. In 2016, eight people at Australia Post were paid a total of nearly $14 million, including the managing director, who was paid $5.6 million. In that same year, Australia Post returned just $20 million as a dividend to government and had undisclosed plans to sell the iconic GPOs in capital cities. These assets were previously agreed to be held in trust for the people of Australia. When the Sydney GPO was sold to Singaporean billionaires we were told the money would be invested in people and services at Australia Post. My view is that these assets should not have been sold. The Labor government appointed Mr Fahour as the Managing Director of Australia Post and, in the six years that followed, taxpayers paid Mr Fahour approximately $24 million, approved and supported by the board of Australia Post. If the board of Australia Post were not paying excessive salaries to key management positions, it would not have been necessary to sell off these national treasures to invest in people and services.
So how do Australians find themselves watching iconic public assets being sold to enrich a few private individuals at Australia Post? Anyone can see the board of Australia Post is incompetent and the government weak. The Managing Director of Australia Post was paid $5.6 million in 2016, which is excessive, to say the least, when compared to equivalent positions such as Canada Post, at A$497,000; US mail, A$543,616; and the Royal Mail in the UK, A$2.5 million. Let's put this in perspective. The board of Australia Post paid Mr Fahour more than 10 times the salary of the Prime Minister of Australia. This does not pass the pub test. After I raised concerns about Mr Fahour's pay packet on the floor of this place, he handed in his resignation the following week, because his pay had never been challenged before.
So how did the board of Australia Post arrive at $5.6 million? The mischief is that the board did not compare the role of the managing director with similar roles in Canada Post, US mail or the Royal Mail in the UK. Instead, the board instructed a consultant to look at roles in the private sector, which were entirely different to those guaranteed by government and founded on a monopoly enshrined in law.
Australia Post is owned by the government, and two shareholder ministers are tasked with acting like ordinary shareholders of any company, but they were asleep at the wheel when Australia Post went off the road. It's a tragedy and a disgrace that this government cannot manage the board of Australia Post in a way that the people of Australia expect. This government needs to learn the art of making its budget balance, and it can start with reducing the salaries of many hundreds of executives who are excessively paid with taxpayer money.
Australians are sick of seeing their hard-earned taxpayer dollars going to overpaid executives while government assets are being sold off, and I include the sale by Australia Post of the iconic GPOs in each capital city. I hear that the sales of the Brisbane and Melbourne GPOs are being negotiated, but I don't know because the government, as shareholder in Australia, keeps us all in the dark. I am sick and tired of being told about the sale of public assets after the deal is done. Australians own these assets and they want a say on whether they are sold or not. I am not going to keep fighting for the rights of Australians to be told in advance what is being done with their assets.
This week the Commonwealth Bank announced it would cut the remuneration package of its chief executive officer by 35 per cent. The board of the bank took the decision in response to shareholder concerns and wider community outrage. The lesson here is that remuneration can go down.
The government, as a matter of urgency, should be conducting a review of the salaries paid to our university vice-chancellors. This group of some 38 men and women are excessively paid. They are on average the highest-paid vice-chancellors in the world, but their universities are not the highest-performing universities in the world. Sydney university is ranked 60th in the world, but the vice-chancellor of Sydney university receives more than double the pay of the No. 1 university in the world, which is Oxford university. The Oxford university vice-chancellor is paid $577,000 a year. In Australia, the average vice-chancellor receives $890,000 a year, and all bar two are paid more than the vice-chancellor of Oxford university. This is a disgrace given many of our universities rank outside the top 300 in the world, and some are not even on the list that ends at 981. Universities cannot expect more funding from taxpayers when they overpay their vice-chancellors. That sets unrealistic relativities throughout the university.
Some senators may recall the public outrage when they learned $5.6 million had been paid to the managing director of Australia Post by the board of Australia Post. Equally outrageous is the payment of $3.6 million to the chief executive officer of the poorly performing NBN. My pressure on government forced them to issue a press release with the heading 'Remuneration Tribunal to oversee Australia Post managing director salary and conditions'. The key word here is 'oversee', because the government wants you to believe that the Remuneration Tribunal exercises some oversight over the determination of the salary for the new managing director of Australia Post. This was not the case and it could never have been the case.
Australians know that, when you say one thing but do something else, you break trust. But still the government was willing to do that and so implemented an underhanded strategy. The government pretended it was outraged at Mr Fahour's pay packet of $5.6 million. Labor also pretended to be outraged, but both parties had opportunities to deal with this excessive remuneration in past years and chose not to do anything. The government press release on 23 February 2017 was a quick and cheap way of giving the appearance of responding to the concerns of Australians, because the press release said the Remuneration Tribunal would determine the pay packet of future managing directors at Australia Post. We know the press release was misleading, because section 86 of the Australian Postal Commission Act 1989 says:
The Managing Director holds office on such terms and conditions (including terms and conditions relating to remuneration and allowances) in relation to matters not provided for by this Act as are determined by the Board.
Nevertheless, the day after the press release, the government purported to give the role to the Remuneration Tribunal, knowing full well that a letter signed by a minister cannot override an act of the parliament. The letter, a legal instrument, declared the board of the Australian Postal Commission would continue to be the employing body, and it assigned the position of managing director at Australia Post a classification E, with a minimum salary of over $469,340, with no upper limit. Let me repeat that: no upper limit. This is no accident. Classifications A, B, C and D all have upper limits. So they have given it completely back to the hands of the board of Australia Post to pay whatever they want to their CEO or managing director.
The board of Australia Post has now offered the new managing director of Australia Post a target reward of $2,337,500 and a stretch incentive of a further $412,500, making the package of $2,750,000 a year. This is half of the $5.6 million paid to Mr Fahour, but it does not reset relativities in pay at Australia Post, where seven key upper-management positions received $8,167,942 in 2016.
Despite all the government's pretence about the Remuneration Tribunal being the body to oversee and determine the quantum of the pay for the managing director of Australia Post, there is nothing to stop the pay rising back to $5.6 million or beyond in the near future. The underhanded way in which the government has gone about this whole matter simply reinforces the need for the Communications Legislation Amendment (Executive Remuneration) Bill 2017 to pass. In my bill, the right of the board of Australia Post to set remuneration will be taken out of the Australian Postal Corporation Act, and that right will by given to the Remuneration Tribunal.
The second part of my bill relates to the position of the CEO at NBN. NBN is on the government books as an asset, not a liability. It has been valued at close to $30 billion, which no-one would pay for the performance it delivers to the poor bunnies of Australia, who have been forced to take it, pay more and receive less than before. I am a member of a Senate inquiry dealing with NBN. It is heartbreaking to listen to the ordinary Australians who have made submissions to the committee. It is a disaster. Yet, despite NBN not meeting its own targets, the chief executive officer of NBN is being paid $3.6 million.
The government will not consider doing anything to reset the remuneration package at NBN because all the focus has been on Australia Post. The government is like a consumer who pays twice what they need to for designer label goods because they have no confidence in their ability to judge quality. The government needs to learn that there is not a direct correlation between how much you pay and what you get. I am determined to see excessive salaries and bonuses paid by hardworking Australian taxpayers reined in, but the government, the opposition and some crossbenchers want to fight that aim at every turn.
Australia Post and NBN are the worst cases of excess. If the Senate will not deal with the worst cases of excess, then there is no hope that a long line of other excessively paid positions will be reduced. Boards of government businesses have proven poor at negotiating remuneration packages. Just look at Australia Post and NBN. These boards do not have the skills nor the ability to stay at arm's length from what one paper describes as rolled-gold negotiators. We need the Remuneration tribunal to set the terms and conditions for all key positions in government-owned businesses. I ask senators to support this bill.
I agree with some of what Senator Hanson has just said. She makes, in my view, a very good point: that the leader of our nation, the Prime Minister, from whichever political party, is paid a fraction of what many other people are paid in this community. I always smile at the fact that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, who is in charge of financial matters in Australia, receives, I suspect—I am not quite sure what it is—around $350,000 to $400,000. But he deals with the executive heads of the major banks, who receive $17 million, $5 million, $3 million plus. When the people who have charge of monetary policy in Australia are paid a pittance compared to what the people they deal with in this country have, it just seems to be a very skewed way of remunerating people. I made the point even when Mr Wayne Swan was the Treasurer—and, heaven forbid, if you were paying him by value, you wouldn't have paid him a cent. But he was there, he was in charge of the monetary system, and it was ridiculous that even Mr Swan was paid only a pittance compared to those he was dealing with.
However, I digress a little bit. I simply wanted to say I'm glad that Senator Hanson has raised these issues. They are issues that we've tried to raise many a time. Senator Hanson, you left out of your contribution something I thought you might've raised. It's something that, for years, we tried to get a handle on, and that is: what is paid to the totally taxpayer funded ABC? I remember we had Senate committee after Senate committee, we had advice from the clerks, and we used to say to the ABC, 'What are your presenters paid?' They refused to tell us. We eventually got to a compromise where we learned that the three major presenters from the ABC got within this range, which meant that some of these people, who, in my view, are nothing more than spruikers for the ALP and the Greens political party, were getting $5 million, $6 million, $7 million in salary for a couple of hours work a week. So maybe there needs to be a bit more transparency in what the taxpayers pay to some senior ABC presenters, on-air people, who I say work a few hours a week because they only do one show a week. As a parliamentarian, I know they do a bit of preparation work. But it's interesting to think about why these presenters, a couple of whom we know have very strong Labor Party connections, are paid these enormous salaries by the taxpayer to propagate what seems to me to be Labor Party propaganda. Others will disagree with that. That's a personal view on these particular presenters. I won't mention them by name. But I think it's time for the ABC, which is totally taxpayer funded, to be brought into this scrutiny, as we politicians always are. If any of my colleagues in this chamber make an indiscretion in their financial matters, it's always the media that are first in to query it and to make it a front-page story. And yet, with the ABC, we have no idea what individuals are paid, and I think that, as a national broadcaster, paid for by the taxpayers' money, that's something parliamentarians should have more oversight of.
But I've digressed from this particular bill. While I listened intently to Senator Hanson's contribution, insofar as Australia Post is concerned, this proposed legislation is superfluous. The intent of the bill was to limit the remuneration of the managing director of Australia Post—I'll come to NBN later. But the government has acted to ensure the remuneration of the managing director of Australia Post now aligns with community expectations. For that reason I suggest to Senator Hanson, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, that the bill's not required, in order to achieve the outcome that she and her party obviously seek to achieve. You don't need to do that, because the government has already acted. In February this year, Senator Cash, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, declared that Australia Post is the employing body for the principal executive officer, the managing director, of Australia Post. This had the effect of bringing the managing director's remuneration under the oversight of the Remuneration Tribunal, and that meant that the board of Australia Post had to set the terms and conditions for the managing director consistent with the requirements of the Remuneration Tribunal. The remuneration for the incoming managing director, as all senators will know, was set under these new arrangements and is half of the remuneration of the outgoing managing director. The Remuneration Tribunal already sets the remuneration for Australia Post's chair and deputy chair and non-executive directors. The government took this decisive action to address community concerns regarding the remuneration paid to the former managing director.
These matters have been raised in any number of Senate committees over the many years that I have been here, but, as Senator Hanson rightly said, it was always difficult for Senate estimates committees to get any real information as to what the former managing director was actually paid. When it was revealed that he was on a total of $5.6 million in 2015-16, everybody appreciated that that was well out of step with community expectations—at a time, I might say, when Australia Post was losing money and the services it was providing to those who needed its services was limited.
I remember trying to do something about the mail centre in Rockhampton, to help out a couple of little people who couldn't get a night's sleep because of all this activity happening next door to their place in a residential area of Rockhampton. We interacted with Australia Post for a period of time. I must say, they treated us courteously, and they responded to everything. But we never achieved much because to remove the mail centre from a residential area and put it on an industrial estate would've cost too much money—though I suspect, in retrospect, it probably wouldn't have cost more than half the managing director's salary. So certainly what was paid to the previous managing director was out of step with the community's expectations.
The Remuneration Tribunal has looked at this matter and they have set a total remuneration reference rate for the office of managing director of $1.4 million, and they have agreed to a performance pay incentive arrangement that provides for access to up to 100 per cent of the total remuneration—that is, an additional $1.4 million. So the board can, if it so wishes, pay a total of $2.75 million, if my arithmetic is correct. That is a matter for the board. But it is overseen by the Remuneration Tribunal, which accepts that Australia Post is a big business with a lot of outlets right around Australia and that it has a lot of dealings with franchisees and a lot international dealings and so it does require the very best person to take on that role.
I know that I—and, I am sure, all other senators—get lots of complaints from licensed post office operators about the treatment they receive from Australia Post. I am currently trying to help the LPO operator in Normanton, way up in the Gulf of Carpentaria, in a dispute with Australia Post as to where the post office in this fairly remote area delivers the money it collects from all those grey nomads travelling up to Karumba near Normanton, and I am hopeful that that matter, which has gone to mediation, will be resolved so that the genuine issues which the operator had can be addressed at the very earliest time.
Whilst I understand what Senator Hanson is getting at, can I again repeat that the government has already addressed that. The Remuneration Tribunal does oversee what the board can pay the managing director of Australia Post. I know that at the time the managing director changed there were changes to the board of Australia Post. I don't know all of the board, but I do know one or two of them. Contrary to Senator Hanson's description of none of them being rolled-gold negotiators, one of the board members that I do happen to know you can class as a rolled-gold negotiator. So the board has changed. I think there is a new appreciation of what needs to be done. It's not an easy business, Australia Post, I concede. It requires good people, and you have to pay well to get good people. But I'm confident now that the board, with the oversight of the Remuneration Tribunal, has got the right balance.
In relation to NBN, you can't but have sympathy with some of the issues Senator Hanson raised today. The reason that the CEO of NBN is not subject to the Remuneration Tribunal is that the shareholder ministers of the NBN actually wrote to the Remuneration Tribunal and told them that they weren't to look at this. Those two ministers, I hasten to add, are not the current ministers. They were, of course, Mr Lindsay Tanner and former senator Stephen Conroy. In a letter dated 24 June 2009, they wrote to the President of the Remuneration Tribunal and said:
Given that the company has been established with the view to taking on private owners within the next few years, we do not propose to have the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company designated as a Principal Executive Officer, or to seek a Remuneration Tribunal determination in relation to the role.
I was around when this NBN was set up. There was never any way in the world—and I bet Senator Conroy, I think, a carton of Grange; I was confident in making the bet quite expensive because I knew I would never have to pay up—that in my lifetime or in Senator Conroy's lifetime would the NBN in the Conroy model ever be sold to private enterprise, because it would be a loss-making company and no profit-making private enterprise would ever consider buying something that was losing so much money. The Conroy model was such that it was impossible for NBN ever to make a profit and, therefore, ever to be in the hands of private owners.
Since the coalition has taken over, NBN will still struggle, I suspect, to make a profit, but it has a chance. I guess at some time in the long-distant future it may become a profitable company and it may then be more appropriate that a private entity run a business rather than the government trying to run a business. The days of governments and public servants trying to run a business passed in the '50s and in Russia and in Eastern Europe in the 1980s, when everyone realised—you didn't have to be an economic genius to realise—that governments and public servants shouldn't be running private businesses. But that is why that wasn't done.
I suspect another reason the Labor Party didn't want the Remuneration Tribunal anywhere near this organisation was that the early stages of the NBN under Senator Conroy turned out to be a repository for failed Labor apparatchiks to get a well-paying job. There was a former Queensland Labor member of parliament by the name of Kaiser who was thrown out of parliament for indiscretions. Would you believe it? He ended up working for NBN as a government liaison person at twice the money he would have received as a politician in the Queensland parliament. I always used to wonder why NBN, which was at that time a government-owned organisation totally under the control of Senator Conroy, needed a government liaison person. They were the government! It was the government liaising with themselves. I guess that, with some of the early payments made by NBN to middle-order officials, the last thing Senator Conroy or those in charge would have wanted was for the Remuneration Tribunal to be anywhere near it.
Mike Kaiser.
Mike Kaiser—you're quite right, Senator Smith. It is the government's view, however, that, for the moment, it remains appropriate that the NBN retain responsibility, or the board retains responsibility, for recruiting key management personnel and setting the remuneration. The NBN board itself is now made up of leaders with specific telecommunications, industry, government and wider commercial expertise. The government is, at this stage, prepared to leave the NBN board to determine the appropriate remuneration required to attract the talent needed to manage the NBN rollout. When compared to Australian businesses of similar size and to executive salaries in the communications sector—and I particularly mention the communication sector—NBN's remuneration is comparable with executive salaries in public companies.
But, again, I know that under the guidance of Senator Fifield and the government, generally, the NBN board will be aware that they should pay industry standards. If they go beyond it, as happened in the case years ago with the Australia Post board, then the government would be watching that very closely. It is the government's and the public's view that what was happening in Australia Post didn't pass the community standard that is expected. The government is very conscious of that. They changed the laws in relation to Australia Post. Whilst at the moment the government is happy to leave the qualified board at NBN to get industry-standard people there at the industry-standard price, it will be keeping a very close watching eye on that.
So the government won't be supporting the bill, because (a) part of it has already been actioned by the Turnbull government, and (b) we think that with NBN at the moment and in that particular sector of the economy, it's one that's best left to a qualified board, which NBN now has.
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Executive Remuneration) Bill 2017 would formally give the Remuneration Tribunal the ability to set the remunerations of the CEOs of Australia Post and NBN Co. This is in the wake of revelations that the remuneration of Australia Post's previous chief executive officer was $5.6 million last year. This has quite rightly been widely criticised and was not in line with community expectations for an entity that is ultimately supported by taxpayers. Australia Post did not report the CEO's salary and, rightly, was roundly criticised for this. Indeed, it was only after a Senate committee denied their request to keep the figure private was it actually finally revealed. The CEO affected has since stood down from his position at Australia Post.
The government then moved to designate the CEO of Australia Post as a principal executive officer and Australia Post as an employing body under the Remuneration Tribunal in response to the outcry over the former CEO's salary. The government has stated that this has had the effect of ensuring the Remuneration Tribunal has appropriate oversight of the CEO's pay. We understand that the tribunal did oversee the setting of the remuneration package for the incoming chief executive officer, who is on a considerably lower salary package.
Labor and the government undertook significant reforms to the Commonwealth's financial management arrangements. This has established a framework necessary for a modern public sector. These reforms were based on a number of key principles: that the government should operate as a coherent whole; that a common set of duty should apply to all public resources handled by Commonwealth entities; and that these should be managed prudently and efficiently. The performance of the public sector is more than financial, and engaging with risk is a necessary step in improving performance. The PGPA Act provided more flexible arrangements for entities and relied on the management of a number of subordinate rules and regulations where officials were expected to be held to a high standard of accountability. And yet we have recently seen, through the Australia Post example and other agencies, decisions not to disclose the remuneration of their senior executives.
As we have learnt now, the Abbott and Turnbull governments did not ensure that Commonwealth entities had sufficient checks and balances on executive remuneration. This led to Australia Post's not revealing the chief executive officer's $5.6 million remuneration package, which was clearly out of step with community expectations. The failure by Australia Post management and board to reveal detailed remuneration information as part of its annual report was enabled by changes to reporting rules which had been made by the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. This demonstrates very much the gaps in the Commonwealth's financial reporting framework that have opened up under this government, and this bill does not actually fix that problem.
We on this side are of the view that greater transparency and scrutiny through Senate estimates will assist to ensure boards and management are held to account for the setting of remuneration, and that it is within the community's expectations, as was shown through the Australia Post example. The Auditor-General considered that there would be benefit in making the aggregate level of transparency for key management remuneration in the public sector consistent with that required for listed entities, and the government has also requested a number of Commonwealth entities revert to the previous regime of remuneration reporting. We welcome the release of those reports under the Minister for Finance's request. However, we believe the government should act to ensure that these are formally required of all Commonwealth entities, and not just at the request of the minister. The government is yet to act on this.
When everyone else is tightening their belt and experiencing record low wage growth, the government was happy for CEOs' salaries to be hidden, as in Australia Post's example. But in comparison to the poor choice by Australia Post, NBN Co chose to disclose much more detailed information. Labor is keen to consider how to formalise the requirements for executive remuneration to enhance transparency, thereby enhancing trust from the community and hold boards and secretaries to account for their remuneration arrangements.
I rise to speak on Senator Hanson's bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Executive Remuneration) Bill. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 and the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 to remove the ability of the respective boards to set remuneration and to give that authority to Remuneration Tribunal by amending the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.
It is my understanding that the Remuneration Tribunal already sets remuneration for most of the other government business enterprises, such as the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which is responsible for some 10,000km of interstate rail; the Australian Submarine Corporation, which is responsible for naval shipbuilding and the proposed spend of $50 billion on new submarines; Defence Housing Australia; and the Moorebank Intermodal Company, which is responsible for the major infrastructure hubs in Sydney. If the Remuneration Tribunal can handle the remuneration of the Prime Minister, members of parliament, the judiciary and others managing government businesses, then it can handle the remuneration for the most senior officers at Australia Post and NBN.
While I'm on the subject of the Remuneration Tribunal, I would like to take the opportunity to remind the Senate that in March this year only senators Bernardi, Leyonhjelm and Lambie and the One Nation senators voted to forgo pay rises set by the government until the federal government delivered a budget surplus. It seems there is not a more unifying issue in this place for senators than their own hip pocket—maybe a parliamentary dual citizenship audit is a close second, but I digress.
No-one in this place could reasonably argue that the annual remuneration of almost $6 million for the previous managing director of Australia Post, Mr Ahmed Fahour, was out of community step and expectations, especially when you compare it to the United States, where the postal service employs over 600,000 staff and delivers more than 660 million pieces of mail a day, yet its CEO gets a package worth A$1.2 million.
The flow-on effect to taxpayers of such an excessive remuneration is significant. It makes payments of between $1.3 million and $1.8 million to a number of other executives seem reasonable. That further reduces the dividend back to the taxpayer. This in turn reduces the ability of Australia Post to absorb some of the increasing costs of delivering the mail, making posting letters and other mail more expensive. It is also a slap in the face to the real workers at Australia Post: the staff, the contractors and the owners of licensed and franchised post offices, who deliver such a valuable service to our community.
On 24 February 2017, after significant pressure from One Nation and an outcry from the Australian community, the government announced that it would bring the position of Managing Director of Australia Post within the regime administered by the Remuneration Tribunal, but it said nothing about the CEO of NBN. I note that the new Managing Director of Australia Post, Ms Christine Holgate, who starts her new role in October, has had her salary set in accordance with the parameters set by the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal and, as such, will receive a base salary of $1.379 million a year, with the potential to earn 100 per cent of that as a bonus. While I personally think that is still excessive compared to the remuneration of the US Postal Service CEO, it is still a step in the right direction.
This bill also brings the CEO of NBN Co within the framework of the Remuneration Tribunal, and I will speak on the board of the NBN Co and its payment of $3.6 million to the chief executive officer at a later date. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) violent extremism in Australia is perpetrated or inspired by terrorist groups that claim to act in the name of Islam,
(ii) the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and similar groups exert influence through a violent ideology, persuasive propaganda and the grooming of young people which has produced significant numbers of radicalised Australian Muslims, and
(iii) the so-called 'lone actor terrorists' are in fact part of a wider group of radicalised communities within Australian Muslim enclaves in Australia; and
(b) calls on the Government to ban full face coverings in public places on the grounds of social cohesion, the need to identify people seeking community support and for public safety.
I rise to speak to the notice of motion standing in my name, which concerns some of the matters I raised in my proposed amendment to the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017. I call on the government to ban full-face coverings in public places. The central issue in this motion before the Senate is the right of others to see a face. No-one should be permitted to hide behind a veil of secrecy while there is a security concern. No-one should be able to receive taxpayer funded support when their identity cannot be confirmed with facial recognition.
Our law recognises some cases where the right to see an individual's face is more important than the right of another to keep their face hidden. These situations include when a person is committing an unlawful act or giving evidence to a court. In the UK, they are now debating whether a patient in a public hospital has the right to see the face of a treating nurse or doctor. In Canada, they have decided that a woman in a burqa can take the oath of citizenship.
In June this year, men disguised in burqas entered the Iranian parliament building and detonated a number of suicide devices, killing 12 people and wounding 35 others. This is not the first case of this kind, and it will not be the last. These terrorists had no fear of an earthly law. They considered themselves martyrs and bound for heaven, taking as many lives as they could.
Our laws are outdated, and we need new ones like a ban on full-face coverings. While it is an offence in most states of Australia to be disguised with unlawful intent, it is self-evident that two years in jail is not a deterrent for a suicide bomber. We need laws to stop terrorism before it happens, and the ability of others to see a face is an important part of assessing risk. As you wander down the corridors of many major airports, you will see security cameras. These cameras relay information to security experts, who need facial recognition to identify terrorists and criminals. Full-face coverings like a niqab or a burqa take away a valuable source of information from counterterrorism experts. Full-face coverings deny us all the right to be as safe as we can be in public places.
The No. 1 job of any government is to keep its citizens safe, and that is why a number of Islamic countries, including Malaysia, Turkey, Tunisia, Egypt and the Congo have banned full-face coverings. If the burqa was a religious requirement then it would not have been banned in public places in Islamic countries. The fact is, wearing a burqa is not a religious requirement.
Non-Islamic countries like Switzerland, Norway, Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, China and Russia have also banned full-face coverings. Again, lawmakers believe a ban improves public safety and enables social cohesion.
Australians don't like double standards. How can you justify banning the wearing of a helmet or a balaclava but not a burqa when entering a bank?
Australia is a Christian country built on Judaeo-Christian values, but many Muslims see Christians as a threat to Islam because it celebrates a falsehood, and so we are progressively seeing the celebration of Christmas in public spaces withdrawn. It is a case of a small minority telling the majority how to live. Development applications for halal housing estates have been rejected to date, but it is only a matter of time before Muslims will have the numbers to get these estates approved.
There is no place in Australia for migrants who want to come here and change the foundation stones of our way of life. My message to those who want to live under sharia law is: migrate to an Islamic country, but don't come here to Australia.
In 2014, Roy Morgan asked Australians whether or not the burqa should be banned in public places. Seventy per cent of Liberal voters wanted the burqa banned and 44 per cent of Labor voters agreed. Overall, 55 per cent of those questioned wanted the burqa banned, but still there is no support for the proposal in this parliament. Labor and Liberal senators fear losing the Muslim vote, and this was never more evident than today with their reaction to my wearing the burqa. They berated me. But let me remind you again: two men in burqas entered the Iranian parliament, detonated a bomb and killed 12 people.
On my way to this chamber today wearing the full burqa, Senator Whish-Wilson extended his hand to me, not knowing who I was, and shook my hand. He has never done that to me in all my time in this place. It was actually just symbolism—wanting to shake my hand. I've never seen him do that. He has not only not shaken my hand in the past, but he has not shaken the hand of any other woman just walking the corridors. It was the burqa that drew him. Was it tokenism? I don't know.
And Senator Cameron was visibly overcome after my senator's statement last week. Well—through you, Chair—Senator Cameron needs to do much better than call me a racist. What you need to do, Senator Cameron, is to prove me wrong with facts from reliable sources.
I will say it again: Muslims determine the electoral outcomes in up to 15 lower house seats. The Muslim vote will continue to increase in importance because of the high birth rates in Australian Muslim communities. The number of Muslims in Australia doubled in the decade from 2006 to 2016 through immigration and the high numbers of children born to Muslim families. If we do not draw a line in the sand against immigration from Islamic countries, the influence of Muslims in this country will continue to grow and Australia will continue down the path of Islamisation. We need to learn from other countries. We need to ban further Islamic immigration for at least five years, so that we can have the debate on the impact of Islam on our country before it is too late. It has been reported that fears over terrorism have caused Sydney to fall from the top 10 in key listings of the world's most liveable cities published by The Economist Group's Intelligence Unit.
Lebanon was once a safe place for Christians in the Middle East, but that was long ago. Today the majority of Christians live to the north of Beirut and the Muslims to the south and east, and towards the northern borders. No-one knows how many Muslims and Christians there are in Lebanon, because the last census was conducted in 1932. Since that time it has been considered too sensitive to know the actual numbers of Muslims and Christians. What we do know is that in 1932, the Christians outnumbered the Muslims, and now Muslims outnumber Christians. Christians in Lebanon are threatened from Sunni and Shiite radical Islam. Christians are in real danger and could face the same fate as other minorities in the Middle East who have needed to leave to survive. Many have found their way here to Australia, for a peaceful life in a country where they feel safe. It is a disgrace that the Labor Party has been silent on the plight of Christians in Lebanon but outspoken in its support for a Palestinian state run by Muslim terrorists.
Australians expect everyone who migrates here to be an active citizen and to work to make Australia a better place. Many Muslims want to adopt our values and way of life, but to gain my trust they need to call out radical Muslims with extreme views. If they are not willing to work to keep their fellow Australians safe then, in my view, they should leave and go to live in an Islamic country.
I want to return to the need for a general ban on the Islamic veil and the burqa in public places. Has anyone ever considered the plight of women forced to wear the burqa and who cannot speak up? That is the issue here. I'm sure there are a lot of women who wish to get rid of the wearing of the burqa, but it's forced on them by their husbands, by their fathers and by men within their family. Many migrants have come here to avoid living under Islam and are deeply worried by the Islamisation of Australia and the failure of parliamentarians to take action. I turn to the fact that I got in a taxi and the Muslim driver recognised me. He said, 'I actually was born a Muslim. I left the faith at 14.' He said, 'I am happy here in Australia. This is my home. But because I have left the Muslim faith my uncle has told my father now he must murder me.' He said, 'You are right in what you are doing. We have to stamp out the extremism in this country, and we must live by Australian values, ways and culture in this country.'
Another big issue is genital mutilation. Cutting is illegal in Australia, but still the practice continues, and at least 60 children have ended up at Westmead Children's Hospital as a result of savage injuries in the name of Islam. The meaning of the Islamic veil, niqab or burqa has varied over time. But what has never changed is the way that the wearer is separated from everyone else. This separation is a barrier to the formation of the relationships that are necessary to integrate into the Australian way of life.
More and more taxpayer money is being spent to keep us safe from homegrown Islamic terrorism. We pay for security at airports, hospitals and in public buildings, and we put the lives of police and others in danger because of thousands of radicalised Australian Muslims. I don't know the cost of keeping Australia safe from extreme and violent Muslims, and invite the government to publish those figures annually. The threat from radicalised Australian Muslims was recognised in a recent decision by the New South Wales Land and Environment Court, when the court agreed with a submission made by Waverley Council that the building of a new synagogue could attract the attention of Muslim terrorists. The Jewish people are no threat to religious freedom in this country, nor to any other freedom, and there have been no plots by Australian Jews to take the rights of others away. But they have paid the price for radicalised Australian Muslims.
Any further outdated immigration policies which support Islamic migration can only drive up the cost of providing safety against Muslims; money that could otherwise have been spent building schools and hospitals. Banning full face coverings in public places is a low-cost safety measure for the taxpayer and it is one step that should be taken, because that is what the majority of Australians want.
The case for a general ban on full-face coverings in all public places rests on the need for social cohesion and for the ability to identify and confirm eligibility in a variety of situations and for public safety. Social cohesion rests very largely on the relationships we form as we go about our daily lives. These relationships are built slowly over time, one by one, and these relationships act like the glue that keeps society peacefully together. We have migrants from over 250 countries in Australia, and we value those relationships. Sydney is the largest immigrant city in the world, with some 60 per cent of people born overseas, whilst 75 per cent of Australians claim a heritage other than Australian, but still we cannot take social cohesion for granted. Our social cohesion is founded on seeing one another's face; on a common language, English; and on a willingness to integrate into an Australian way of life.
Australia is a true democracy based on gender equality and freedom of expression, and where everyone is equal under the law. Most Australians like it that way, but not radical Muslims. Radical Muslims want sharia law, where women are not treated equally to men and homosexuals are not tolerated. The Muslim world has yet to learn that secularism avoids religious conflict. When you look at the Middle East, you can see the conflict created by Islam.
In Australia, the ability to see a face is essential to communication and the formation of relationships on which our society is founded. Non-verbal communication is essential to understand the content of verbal communication.
Section 116 of the Australian Constitution prohibits the Commonwealth from making any laws which prohibit the free exercise of any religion, but the courts have made it clear there are limits to that freedom when conduct is inconsistent with the maintenance of civil government. Let me say it again: wearing a niqab or a burqa is not a religious requirement. Courts around the world have decided that an individual's right to wear religious face coverings in public is secondary to the rights and freedoms of others.
The New Zealand District Court held that two women from Afghanistan would have to remove their full face veils to give evidence. It was argued that the barrister needed to see their faces to be able to understand their evidence. The court found it was not necessary to decide whether a full-face covering was or was not a religious requirement, because in all cases the human right to freedom of religion was secondary to the human right to justice.
In late 2016, Judge Balla in the Sydney district court was faced with a similar problem. She decided not to hear evidence from Moutia Elzahed, the second wife of Islamic recruiter Hamdi Alqudsi, because she would not reveal her face. Hamdi Alqudsi's other wife, Carnita Matthews, was imprisoned for falsely accusing a police officer of trying to remove her veil, but—bad luck for her—the incident was caught on a car camera, and the footage showed she had lied. It also showed she could not be properly identified behind the veil, and the conviction was overturned on appeal. Is this parliament willing to do anything at all to support the police and the courts to work smoothly, or are senators satisfied to do nothing and let three per cent of Australians decide whether or not someone wearing a full face covering can waste taxpayers' money and precious police and court resources?
The argument about full-face coverings and human rights has been lost. The European Court of Human Rights in 2014 held 15 to two that a ban on full-face coverings did not violate human rights. This is a problem with full-face coverings, whether they are Islamic veils or burqas, a mask or any other covering, like bandages. Full, face coverings isolate people on both sides of the covering, denying important non-verbal information to set the context of verbal communication. We have immigrants from over 250 countries, many of them from non-English-speaking backgrounds. How do we expect people to integrate into the Australian way of life when faces are covered?
It is clear that Muslims, particularly those with extremist views, have chosen to live separately from other Australians in a way no other religious group has done in Australia. The 2016 census shows us that no other religious group is so strongly concentrated and so alienated from other Australians.
In closing, I want to say that everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs, but it is only Islam that threatens our way of life. The members in this parliament agreed to spend $16 million to upgrade security here because of a threat from radical Islam. Why don't senators show some leadership and ban the burqa in public places? It is outrageous that we allow hate preachers to be here, but women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are unsafe in our country.
This needs to be debated, and I'm pleased that it is on the floor of the chamber today, so we can hear other people talk on this matter, because Australians want this debated. Australians want to hear what our members and the leaders of this nation have to say about banning the burqa. As I said in my statement, a large percentage of Australians, over 70 per cent, believe that banning the burqa is necessary and important. They are confronted by it. Two of our former prime ministers, Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, have also indicated they found it confronting. Standing in this chamber today with the burqa on, even Senator Hinch wanted to see my face. Every Australian will want to see a face. It may be that, in coming into this chamber with a burqa on, what I did was radical. Yes, it was. But it was a case of saying I do not believe that at any point in time in the future any full-face covering should ever be worn in this place.
Every Australian who watches or hears this has the right to see the face of everyone in this chamber to ensure that it is the right person. And I will say again: when I walked from my office down to this chamber, I was not challenged once by any security guard to check to see that it was me under that veil. We have a real problem. My coming here today wearing the burqa was also to prove the point that we in this chamber have to ensure that the person taking their place in the chamber has the right to be here. We have to ensure full safety. I go back to this: the Iranian parliament building was bombed. Do not always consider that this is the safest place. It is not. We have a better chance here than many people out on the streets of this nation.
Firstly, I want to congratulate Senator Brandis for the response that he gave to what was an outrageous stunt by Senator Hanson and One Nation. It wasn't just Senator Hanson; it was all of One Nation who engaged in that stunt. I thought the response from Senator Brandis was excellent—and I don't think I've ever congratulated Senator Brandis on anything since I've been in this place.
I just want to go to some of the issues that have been raised by Senator Hanson in the contribution that she has just made—a contribution underpinned by racism; a contribution underpinned by religious intolerance; a contribution, from my point of view, underpinned by just plain stupidity. This is not good for our nation. This is not good for Australia. Why would anyone have to gain the trust of Senator Pauline Hanson? I say to all the Muslims out there: you don't need to gain the trust of Senator Pauline Hanson, because the bulk of Australians trust you. They trust you to make good, effective contributions to this country. You don't need to prove anything to One Nation or to Senator Pauline Hanson.
I oppose this motion from One Nation. I'm not religious. I think most people know I'm not religious; I'm an atheist. But I do respect the Constitution, which says people should have the right to practise their religion, so I just find it absolutely mind-boggling that, for the second time this week, we have a contribution so terrible for multiculturalism in this country and so bad for a decent society in this country. It is a contribution that is about breaking apart a cohesive society and a country that is renowned around the world for its capacity to welcome people here and have them integrate effectively in a good society.
I am a migrant, as most people would be aware. I came here in 1973. I came here along with my wife, Elaine, and my then only daughter, Lynn. We came here because we wanted to get away from religious intolerance. I was brought up a Presbyterian, and my wife was brought up a Catholic in the west of Scotland. In those days it was not considered by many to be a good thing that we married. You cannot have a cohesive society when religious intolerance is practised the way that Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation are practising and promoting religious intolerance. It didn't do the west of Scotland any good having that intolerance. Some of it is still there, but, thankfully, people are moving away from that sort of nonsense. There are lessons for us all when we look at religious intolerance around the world.
I think Senator Hanson is in here pushing this agenda for pure political purposes. She has a small base and she's playing up to that base. Of stunts like today I want to say to any Muslims that are listening in and to all Australians that may be listening in that this Senate condemns that approach. That was overwhelming in the response led by Senator Brandis and supported by Senator Wong. Every other party and politician in this place was appalled at that stunt that was pulled today.
Talking about the influence of Muslims: I just looked up some of the young Muslim high achievers. They're going to make huge contributions to this country. Every country wants high achievers so they can have growth in the economy, a good society and jobs for people. If you look at these young high achievers—and I've just picked one area from across Australia—of the Australian International Academy, a Melbourne senior campus, the dux of the school is Mohammed Habbal with a score of 97.6. What does Mohammed want to do? He wants to go to Monash University and study biomedical science. If that's not a contribution to Australia, I don't know what is. Asmaa Barakat, a young Muslim woman, wants to go to the University of Melbourne to study science. That, not the vile racism and nonsense we hear from Senator Hanson, is what contributes to this country.
Hussein Kaddour, with 94.6, wants to go to the University of Melbourne and study science. Other young people want to do biomedical science, engineering honours, applied science and psychology. I'll tell you what: I welcome this contribution from young Muslims in this country. They are the future of this country as much as the future of this country depends on any religion or any individual. Muslims make their contribution. It's a welcomed contribution. It is a significant contribution. And to come here and run a stunt like we've just seen belittles this place. I am so proud that Senator Brandis and the rest of the Senate just said, 'We are not tolerating this.'
I want to go back to former senator Ron Boswell. Former Senator Boswell always maintained strong views about One Nation. I disagreed with former Senator Boswell on many, many issues, but he has written a recent opinion piece entitled 'Why Pauline Hanson's One Nation is catastrophic for the bush'. In it, he said:
It was the Aboriginals. Then the Asians. Then the Muslims. The story is always the same, it's just the characters that change based on who's most unpopular at the time. It's good for winning a few votes but it's a disaster for Australia and its relationships with its trading partners.
Ron Boswell was being pragmatic about this. Ron Boswell was clearly understanding the threat that One Nation posed to this nation, not the other way around. One Nation, according to former Senator Boswell, is the threat to the nation, not the Muslims who are in here becoming the scientists, the doctors, the GPs and the engineers of the future. It's not them; it's One Nation and the bitterness and political opportunism we see from them.
I know Senator Sinodinos is well respected, but he said that One Nation had evolved in the 16 years since his former boss John Howard decreed that the Liberal Party would always put One Nation last on their how-to-vote card. He said:
The One Nation of today is a very different beast to what it was 20 years ago—they are a lot more sophisticated, they have clearly resonated with a lot of people.
Our job is to treat them as any other party. That doesn't mean we have to agree with their policies.
Senator Sinodinos, I said it to you today and I will say it again: if this is the evolution of One Nation, God help us—and I'm an atheist! I tell you, this is not a party that is evolving. I don't think it is a different beast. I think it's the same beast. It's a beast that's out there trying to create division in this community, and I just don't accept his proposition. Senator Sinodinos was sitting here when we saw that stunt today. If that's more sophistication from One Nation, we don't want more sophistication like that. One Nation are anything but a sophisticated political party.
This argument that we are being 'swamped by Muslims' is just another racist rant from this so-called political party. Last week, Senator Hanson ran the rant that the Muslims were a drain on the public purse. I've got to tell you, these high-achieving young Muslims that want to be the doctors of the future, the engineers of the future and the scientists of the future are not a drain on the public purse. The Muslim families that I know are families that have got the same aspirations and the same goals I have, and that is to have their family with a roof over their head, to have a job in the future, to be able to put food on the table and to make a contribution to our society. Those are the Muslims I know. I just don't understand why any political party would come here and try to divide our nation the way that Senator Hanson does now on a regular basis in this place.
She argued we were in danger of being swamped. Then she was on Facebook holding up a poster saying, 'Pray for a Muslim ban.' The election platform from One Nation includes ceasing Muslim migration and holding a royal commission on Islam. What is wrong with these people? What's wrong with them? The election platform also includes installing surveillance cameras in mosques, banning the burqa and the niqab and prohibiting members of parliament being sworn in under the Koran. This is racist, this is religious intolerance and this is manifest stupidity from Senator Hanson and One Nation.
Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts share the stage with groups like Reclaim Australia and the Love Australia or Leave Party. The Love Australia or Leave Party's platform includes the right to bear arms, national profiling of 10- to 14-year-olds, mandatory singing of the national anthem in all schools, a ban on Muslim migration and Muslims in the Australian military and a mandatory reporting obligation for all Australians who form a reasonable suspicion of unacceptable risk about another person. Does that remind you of something? Doesn't that remind you of what happened in Nazi Germany? It certainly reminds me of the history of Nazi Germany. These are the people that One Nation are sharing platforms with, spewing their bile and racial intolerance day after day.
They also share the platform with the United Patriots Front. Their leader, Shermon Burgess, who organised the Reclaim Australia rallies that Pauline Hanson spoke at, said:
I recruited a lot of patriots who come from backgrounds as body builders, ex-martial arts, one of our guys is an ex-cage fighter and we said we are going to get them on the front line.
Does that remind you of something that happened in the United States last week? It does me. And that is not acceptable in this country. We cannot accept this white nationalism, this racism and these attacks on our fellow Australians, because Muslims are our fellow Australians. That's what they are. They are not Muslims on their own and Catholics are not Catholics on their own. They are our fellow Australians. It doesn't matter if you are Hindu; you are a fellow Australian.
Everyone that I know and speak to has the same views: they want their kids to be brought up in a secure, decent society. If I was a young Muslim listening to Senator Hanson, the United Patriots Front and these other racist groups, I would be concerned; I would not feel secure. This is not the Australia that I migrated to in 1973, wanting a better life for my kids and grandkids. I don't want them to be worrying about some race riots or white Nazi supporters out there attacking young Muslims because of religion. I don't want that to happen. Banning the burqa and running the rubbish that we've heard today are absolutely the antithesis of what sensible Australians want. They don't want that. We don't want to be turned into the worst aspects of the US or some of the countries in Europe that are running white-racist arguments. We don't want to go down that path. We want to give to young Muslim Australians who are here excelling at school job opportunities for the future and a life for the future so that they can bring their kids to Australia and get ahead in this country. They are part of our community.
We are a multicultural migrant nation. We have welcomed people from all over the world. Muslims have been an important part of our migrant history. Muslim people are our neighbours, our friends and our colleagues. They are valued and they are great contributors to our society in all walks of life. It is in our culture, our tradition and our democratic political system that minorities are protected and not vilified. We are a secular nation with religious freedom and tolerance. Bigotry should be reviled, called out and named for what it is, whenever and wherever it is seen. Australia is better than One Nation.
This will probably be seen around the world. I want to say to anyone who sees this anywhere that that is not Australia. What we saw today in question time is not Australia. Australia is a great country. Australia is a multicultural country. Australia is a country that welcomes different religions and different ethnic groups to our country. They even accepted me!
Not yet, Dougie!
Oh, yeah, not yet! We have so many challenges in this country, and the challenges are made harder, tougher and worse because of the racism and religious intolerance that underpins One Nation. They are an absolute disgrace.
I don't want to give this too much oxygen, so I will keep it quick. If Senator Hanson wanted to prove that it is possible for dangerous extremists to get into the Senate chamber, she proved it alright. She proved that Australians have something to fear, and it is her! With her stunt, Senator Hanson wanted to prove the need for a ban on full-face coverings. She could have made the same point by wearing a balaclava, but she didn't, and she didn't for a reason.
This week, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee issued 24 unanimous recommendations to end the silent epidemic of veterans' suicide. We should be really proud of ourselves for that. All sides came together in a rare moment to make people's lives better. But what was needed next was unity, and what we saw today was an effort to divide all of us. I didn't want to talk about Senator Hanson today, but here we are. What she has done has diminished this place, and it has diminished us all. She is an absolute embarrassment. But what is even worse is that because of her actions she is dividing a nation. She is not One Nation; she is Divided Nation.
Today we saw the true face of Pauline Hanson's One Nation. It wasn't actually concealed behind a burqa. It was in the twisted smiles of Senator Burston and Senator Roberts sitting behind their leader, grinning and laughing as she mocked and demeaned an entire religion. This is mere days after the Charlottesville attacks in the United States, which showed how easily hateful words can become hateful deeds. And that's the warning for this country: how quickly things can change, and how quickly words that demean can become deeds that harm and kill. It showed what happens when violent extremists are encouraged or even appeased by chickenhawk politicians—and there's a few of those in this place—and their fellow travellers in the media.
Last month the Islamophobia in Australia report revealed some of the appalling attacks that Senator Hanson and her colleagues today endorsed and encouraged, and it showed that women, especially women wearing Islamic head coverings, have been the main targets of these attacks. I want to quote a couple of incidents from that report, Islamophobia in Australia, which give a picture of some of the things that are going on in this country. One woman said this: 'I'm not sure if they started to follow me on foot, but once I entered the medical centre I didn't hear or see anything else from them. I am 19 weeks pregnant and have never felt so afraid and so vulnerable in my life. I thought they were going to physically try harming my daughter and me. There were lots of passers-by who did not come to my aid.' And another woman said this: 'I was walking with my head down and a group of young males yelled out, "ISIS bitch! Go back to where you came from!" and snickered and said, "Shoosh, or she will behead you," and they followed me down the street, and none of the train staff helped me out or stopped them.'
To the vast majority of Australians, these are disgusting attacks. But to Senator Hanson and her colleagues, these are laughing matters. They claim to be representing the Australian people, but they are doing no such thing, because we are a fair country, a decent country, a welcoming country, a country that respects and celebrates diversity, and a country in fact that has been built on the rich, multicultural fabric that exists in our country to this day.
As elected MPs, we have a responsibility to confront these slurs and these attacks on freedom of religion whenever they occur, and I want to echo and commend the comments of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis, and the many others from the Labor Party, from the crossbench and from the Australian Greens who have condemned these disgraceful attacks on over half a million Muslim Australians. It was a fantastic moment in this Senate this afternoon when Labor, Green and crossbench senators stood and applauded Senator Brandis's remarks. It is notable that many of his Liberal colleagues did not. Senator Brandis showed the kind of leadership that has been sorely lacking in government in Australia today.
So let us today, please, finally draw the line. Let those of us who believe in freedom of religion, who believe in multiculturalism, who believe in the right of women to choose what they want to wear, stand up today and represent the vast majority of Australians who are sick to their guts with what they saw from Pauline Hanson's One Nation today. And we'll stand with these men and these women, these Australians who believe in decency and want to see everyone in this country have a chance to live their own lives and to make their own choices, without being so disgustingly disrespected as we saw from One Nation in this place today. And let's demand that all of us in this place stop comforting and appeasing the extremists in our own ranks and particularly those in Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, because it's only through confronting hatred, naming it and calling it out, wherever we see it and wherever we hear it, that we can hope to defeat it.
Question negatived.
I present a report on official travel undertaken by me to Argentina, Uruguay and Chile which took place on 31 May to 10 June 2017.
I would like to put on the record that this is an extremely complex area of public policy. The chair of the committee, the Hon. Kevin Andrews; other members of the committee; and I ,as deputy chair, are extremely effective in a bipartisan way. What we've been able to do in our examination of the implementation of the national disability scheme is take quite specific segments, in this case the area of people with psychosocial disabilities, and produce an interim report about how the implementation of the scheme is going in that particular area. There will also be an interim report on the area of deafness.
What we're finding is that it is extremely complex public policy. There is a vital sector which is advocating for their representative groups, their constituents, so to speak. We're able to take their evidence in public hearing, reduce it to recommendations and, hopefully, allow the full implementation of the scheme across the whole gamut of Australians with disability, with the view that they'll be able to enjoy a more productive, a more compassionate spend, if you like, on their particular plans—and have more control over that spend.
I would like to conclude by saying that we have a silo-type approach in respect to each area that is coming up with particular concerns. They are enjoying the opportunity to present at public hearings. We are taking evidence and making recommendations as we go. I commend the report to the Senate and highlight the good work that the committee is doing in an extremely bipartisan way.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to take note of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee The constant battle: suicide by veterans. Australian veterans have been waging a silent and very private war that far exceeds the length of any conflict this nation has been involved in. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee learned of this war, this constant battle, through the Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and defence personnel. We heard from those on the frontline who are fighting to stay alive, not because bullets and bombs are being fired at them but because of weapons of another kind: the loss of lives of their brothers and sisters during armed conflict; the witnessing of other acts of war that most Australians fail to fully comprehend; the sustainment of injuries, physical or mental, followed by the country's veteran support system letting them down; a complicated and difficult transition from military to civilian life; or the infliction of abuse or bullying by comrades charged with the obligation of protecting them too.
This inquiry heard it all, and why? Because of statistics which include that the rate of suicide is 13 per cent higher than that of the general population for male serving members in the ADF. Men who have left the ADF between the ages of 18 and 24 have twice the risk of suicide compared to their peers. These statistics are a sobering reflection of the impact service to our nation can have on our men and our women. The impacts of their service can have a profound lifelong effect on their physical and mental health.
What this inquiry has revealed is that, as a nation, we have fallen well short of providing the kind of treatment and support that is so desperately needed. Sometimes the best treatment doesn't come in a bottle. It doesn't come from a doctor's surgery. It can come from a companion: a four-legged friend. For many sufferers of PTSD, these four-legged friends are more than just companions; they are quite literally life savers.
PTSD is a common, chronic and sometimes disabling condition. On average it affects 8.3 per cent of our current serving ADF personnel, and DVA has over 28,000 clients with a registered stress disorder. That is 28,000 people who have experienced something that has left them with a condition that is not always straightforward to manage. Existing PTSD treatments can reduce the severity of symptoms, but attrition is high and many veterans struggle with the condition day in and day out. That is why it is so important that the federal government does not remain antiquated in it thinking about how to treat veterans with PTSD and other mental health conditions. Modern approaches are crucial.
This was emphasised by submitters to this inquiry like the organisation, Ruff Love. We heard from three veterans—Mr Lawson, Mr Ward and Mr Clarke—who have been working with Ruff Love, which pairs veterans with assistance dogs. At the committee's Brisbane hearing I asked each of these three veterans whether their assistance dogs had saved their lives. The answer was a resounding 'yes'. Let's reflect on those words for a moment. It wasn't a pill and it wasn't a person; it was a dog who saved these men. Yet DVA is refusing to fund assistance dogs. They are refusing to accept what so many of us already know: that these dogs are saving lives.
The government says they are waiting on results from overseas trials. If this is the excuse they are using to delay treatment to veterans, then it is simply not good enough. Right now in South Australia the Royal Society for the Blind's Operation K9 program has been placing fully trained assistant dogs with eligible veterans since 2013. These highly trained assistance dogs perform various tasks, all of which meet the needs of each veteran and aim to reduce the symptoms of PTSD. These tasks can include rousing its owner from nightmares and turning on lights through to the dog nudging the veteran with its nose in order to seek attention and distract the veteran during times of stress. One veteran in the Operation K9 program felt there was a light at the end of the tunnel after he was placed with his dog. This was joined with a reduction in his anxiety and a will to reconnect to society. His wife said of the assistance dog, 'She's changed our lives.' The Operation K9 program is already under assessment by the University of Adelaide's Centre for Traumatic Stress Studies. The assessment aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Operation K9 program in reducing participants' PTSD symptoms and other types of psychological distress over a 12-month period. This study would provide the government with the evidence they need to determine the benefits of providing assistance dogs to veterans.
I have spoken with the Royal Society for the Blind and, with just a little help from the government, they would be able to train more dogs for more veterans. In its report, the committee has recommended that a trial program be funded that would provide assistance animals for veterans with PTSD. This trial would aim to gather research to support an expansion of that program with the ultimate goal of giving more broad-based financial support through DVA to assist veterans obtain and live with assistance dogs. There is multiparty support for the immediate instigation of trialling assistance animals, and what we need now is for the federal government to act. The fact that this report has the support of so many parties and people in this place is encouraging.
Like the discussion around assistance animals, the committee's examination of the issues veterans face while transitioning from Defence must also take on board the complexity of the issues faced by veterans during this process. For many veterans the transition from military to civilian life is difficult and complex. They may go from having a highly structured life to feeling like their days have no meaning. The period of time when ADF members transition to civilian life is a critical time for support and assistance. The Nick Xenophon Team supports the recommendation that the task force examine and address all barriers to employment for veterans who are transitioning. This review also needs to look to all and any disincentives for veterans to undertake work or study resulting for the Department of Veterans' Affairs legislative policy and frameworks. It is not good enough for veterans to have just any job once they leave military life. All jobs should be adequate and appropriate for veterans' needs, skill level and experience, with the goal of long-term employment. I've had veterans come to me and my office who have been offered positions in administration well below their skill level which do not reflect their experience within the ADF. Yet the Department of Veterans' Affairs appears willing to push them into any job that provides a wage, even if that job is not appropriate for them and fulfils none of their long-term needs.
Mates4Mates reported to the committee that veterans have had negative civilian work experiences—in particular, soon after discharge. As this inquiry has heard, the DVA system is slow and complex. It provides disincentives to work, depending on the compensation act the person falls under. It also provides disincentive to study, depending on the compensation act that person falls under. We need to be supporting our veterans towards long and fulfilling careers by encouraging them to study. We shouldn't be putting them into situations where they have to choose between DVA support, unsupported study or full-time study and full-time work while managing their PTSD symptoms. We need to be supporting veterans to choose a life worth living. This is about saving people's lives through relatively minor policy and legislative changes.
At the May estimates this year the Department of Veterans' Affairs told me they had been working on issues of transitions for veterans for decades—that's right, decades. We cannot afford to spend further decades on getting this right. The price of waiting is simply too high. The evidence has been put to this inquiry. The recommendations have been made. The government needs to act on them immediately. Many of these inquiries' recommendations expand on or mirror previous recommendations. We can't keep making recommendations that no-one follows and then exclaim loudly when more veterans take their own lives at the shame of such a loss. Like any war, this battle is complex and it cannot be won overnight. I cannot pretend that through this inquiry we have found all the answers, but through this inquiry there is a path to a truce. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the third interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. As the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I was very proud of this bipartisan report that the committee presented. I believe that in every functional and robust democracy an effective electoral management body is essential to conduct free and fair elections. Australia is absolutely no exception to that. The Australian Electoral Commission serves as our electoral management body and, by virtue of this, holds a crucial role in maintaining and supporting our representative democracy.
Today I speak on the tabling of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters third interim report on the last federal election. As the chair of the committee, I am extremely proud of this bipartisan report. It will ensure that the AEC, as the democratic institution responsible for maintaining an impartial and independent electoral system, is equipped with the necessary tools and resources to ensure the efficient maintenance of our elections. Regardless of whether voters like or dislike the outcome of an election, they must have ultimate confidence in the process itself. Even if they don't like the outcome, they should be able to trust and understand that it represents the majority will of Australian voters and that the results, declared by the AEC, accurately represent the votes cast by Australian voters.
The AEC's mandate is to maintain an impartial and independent electoral system. It is therefore imperative that the health, capabilities and resources of the commission never be taken for granted or held hostage to partisan politics in this parliament. Throughout the conduct of this inquiry, it was brought to the committee's attention that various aspects of the Electoral Act are inadequate in keeping pace with and regulating the current political environment. Additionally, with the rapid and continual evolution and development of modern technology, the AEC's capability to monitor and oversee elections has, at times, been insufficient to keep pace with the change in society.
The committee was of the view that there is a significant scope for technological improvements and to replace many of the very time-consuming and inefficient manual handling processes. Additionally, upgrades to the AEC's core IT systems are long overdue and pose potential risks to the integrity of elections. Indeed, we heard that some of the Electoral Commission's systems are still DOS based. Successive governments have not pursued reform and modernisation of the AEC, and consequently the commission today has had limited capacity to modernise and to evolve with evolving times. The committee heard that change is now imperative to maintain confidence not only in the AEC but also in the integrity of the conduct of our democratic elections. Quite clearly, the AEC needs additional resourcing to keep pace with changes.
The committee was particularly conscious of recent events both domestically and overseas, including the denial-of-service attacks on the Australian Bureau of Statistics and speculation on attempts to influence the United States' last federal election by foreign actors. These attacks clearly indicate that the threat of cybersecurity attacks is very real and is an issue that we must deal with. Such threats to the Australian electoral processes must be effectively identified and mitigated as much as possible.
In addition to the committee's inquiry, the AEC also recognised the necessity of reviewing the commission's election-planning processes and its delivery, but also of seeking new opportunities for modernisation and innovative reforms to deliver elections.
This interim report provides a suite of recommendations for reform to assist and supplement the AEC to address some of the most urgent impediments to its ability to implement organisational change. The committee does, however, acknowledge that, while these forms will provide much-needed improvements, they will not in and of themselves create an organisation that is genuinely transformational in nature. The task of transforming the AEC into an organisation that is able to continuously adapt to meet its mandate in a rapidly-evolving world will take ongoing bipartisan support and oversight. The committee's five recommendations are all designed to provide the AEC with that immediate support.
Whilst the recommendations represent the starting point, the committee understands that modernising the AEC will be a continuous and ongoing process. There are evolving challenges such as the influence of foreign actors, the changing landscape of political campaigning and cybersecurity threats that now require much closer scrutiny. To ensure that these recommendations achieve the objectives and set out targets, the committee has further recommended that the commission update the committee biannually to monitor developments on a more ongoing basis. The committee commends the AEC for its willingness to adopt the Keelty reforms and for its proactive efforts in identifying ways of transforming culture and processes. As the AEC is limited by outdated legislative requirements, it is now the parliament's responsibility to support legislative change to achieve this.
In concluding my remarks on this report, I also thank all of those who made submissions and the secretariat staff, and I also acknowledge all of the members of the committee for their very good will and their genuine commitment to ensuring the stability and strength of the Australian electoral processes and the AEC. I acknowledge the contributions of my colleague Senator Ketter as one of the members of the committee in that process.
In concluding my comments, I will just note that the committee has now moved from this report into its fourth interim report on elections and donations. As chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I was dismayed to see that a motion of the Greens to establish a Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations was passed by this chamber today. I see no redeeming features in this particular select committee. It is, I believe, an attempt to undermine the processes of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and our bipartisan inquiries, and, up until today, our very strong bipartisan approach to the very important issue of reforming the Australian political donations system here in Australia.
I would also note that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which has successfully resulted in many, many bipartisan recommendations for reform, including this third report, has Senator Lee Rhiannon from the Greens as a member. While Senator Rhiannon and I might not very often agree on policy, I commend Senator Rhiannon for her commitment, dedication and willingness to look into and to support the best interests of the Electoral Commission and the integrity of our electoral processes.
When I saw this select committee today, I was aghast that the Greens would, I believe, use a joint Senate select committee to so egregiously bring whatever fighting is going on with the Greens and with Senator Rhiannon into this chamber and to this process. No good can come of having a select committee on at the same time and on the same issue as the bipartisan Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I would like to seek leave to continue my remarks on that report.
Leave granted.
I congratulate the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Senator Reynolds, who does an exceptional and, I think, quite amazing job in addressing the issues which the committee is inquiring into—in this instance, the 2016 election, in all of its facets. As Senator Reynolds mentioned, the committee moves on in a very even, balanced and bipartisan way under the senator's leadership, to look at foreign donations or donations generally to political parties.
I, too, was absolutely disgusted—Senator Reynolds is noted for her conciliatory approach, which is not always my approach—that the Nick Xenophon Team would vote today with the Greens and the Labor Party to set up this parallel committee. You don't expect anything better from the Greens and the Labor Party. They know that a fair committee under someone with balanced leadership, like Senator Reynolds, will look into the real issues.
It is a committee that comprises members from all political parties—as Senator Reynolds mentioned—even Senator Rhiannon, who we don't often agree with on policy issues. But I always admire Senator Rhiannon because at least she is true to her cause. She doesn't pretend to be anything but what she is. Clearly, that doesn't go over well with the Greens' political party. They have ostracised her. I can't remember when Senator Rhiannon was last given a question when the Greens have the call. It seems to me—and we don't want to get overly enthused on conspiracy theories—that one of the reasons for setting up this dodgy, if I might say, select committee to inquire into exactly the same thing as the joint standing committee is looking into, is that the Greens don't trust Senator Rhiannon to represent their interests anymore in that particular committee. So, as a result, the Greens, the Labor Party and Senator Xenophon and his team have agreed to use Senate resources, very limited as they are. Mr President, you can't comment, and neither can the Clerk sitting at the table, but we know that Senate resources are limited. There are far too many committees of the Senate set up for purely political purposes by the Greens and the Labor Party majority in this chamber, simply to operate as political voices for the Greens, the Labor Party and their left-wing agenda.
I am so disappointed—well, I am disgusted. 'Disappointed' is not strong enough. I am so disgusted with Senator Xenophon, who wants to be all things to all men and yet supports this ridiculous setting up of a committee of the Senate to inquire into exactly the same things, exactly the same terms of reference, as the joint standing committee. The joint standing committee has been in operation as long as I have been in parliament, and that's now 27 years. It is an institution in this parliament, and, whether it's chaired by someone as erudite and balanced as Senator Reynolds or it's chaired by a Labor chairman, it's always managed to approach its duties in a balanced, fair way, getting to the facts.
I haven't always agreed with its conclusions, because very often the Labor Party will stop any real recommendations in relation to personal identification in the electoral process. Everybody from the Federal Police down will tell you that, unless we can have a method of ensuring that people are who they say they are—but for some reason the Labor Party never want to deal with that. But, apart from that, my experience over the years is that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has performed a real purpose. It's a respected institution of this parliament.
Yet today we have the Greens and the Labor Party, as you'd expect, setting up this—I can only call it dodgy, sorry—dodgy committee of the Senate to inquire into exactly the same things. If it were doing anything new, anything different, that couldn't be done by the joint standing committee, then you might understand it. The terms of reference are slightly different, varied for clever reasons, but what the committee will look at will be exactly the same as the joint standing committee was about to start work on tomorrow morning.
I know that Senator Reynolds had called a meeting to set the parameters from all parties, from Senator Rhiannon, from the Greens; from the Labor Party; and from our side of politics, and I think the National Party were invited. They sometimes have a different view to us Liberals. Everyone was there. Senator Reynolds wanted to make sure that this was a non-political committee and that we actually looked at the real issues. Senator Ketter, who's in the chamber, is part of that committee. Senator Ketter, who doesn't often get involved in some of the shenanigans of the Greens and his colleagues in the Labor Party, understands that this is a serious committee looking for serious resolutions, serious outcomes, to issues that the parliament and Australians generally need to address.
Yet here we have this absolutely dodgy approach from the Greens, orchestrated by the Greens to get back at Senator Rhiannon, obviously, supported by the Labor Party—and I expect that. I've been here long enough to know that you cannot expect anything else. But Senator Xenophon always claims to be the voice of reason, the one who's so responsible, so even, so wanting to get a result, who doesn't want to play politics, and here he is, giving to the Greens and the Labor Party the majority to set up this dodgy committee to inquire into exactly the same areas, the same questions, as the respected joint standing committee is already investigating.
I would hope—someone said to me that they thought Senator Xenophon had been misled as to the direction of this committee today. If that is true—I can't remember who said that to me, and I'm not sure if it is true, but if it is true—then Senator Xenophon should be the one who comes to this chamber next time we meet and says he was misled on what that Senate select committee was all about. We should have another vote on it, and he should put his efforts into the joint select committee.
I have to say that, as I go around many inquiries set up by the Greens and the Labor Party and Xenophon in this chamber, I find that very rarely is anyone from the Greens political party attending. Very rarely, or never, is the Xenophon party there. Just going back to last Friday, it's a case in point. We had an inquiry set up by the Greens, Labor and Xenophon on the North Australia Infrastructure Facility. The inquiry finished and there was never anyone from the Xenophon party at the inquiry, even though they had provided their numbers to set it up.
What a dodgy inquiry that was. The Greens were there for a little while, but then they disappeared. They hear the witnesses they choose to call, but when the department comes along or someone else comes along to give a contrary view, the Greens all leave. This brings the whole committee system into disrepute. This is something I have spoken about often in this chamber, because I despair at the way that Senate committees are now being used for purely political purposes when, years ago, they were serious exercises that people used to respect and take notice of. Regrettably, that's not the case today.
I've digressed slightly from the issue before us. I support this report by the Joint Standing Committee on the 2016 election, or another aspect of it. It's well thought through, as you'd expect with Senator Reynolds as the chair. I know that the senators will use this report properly, because they know they can have confidence in the recommendations contained in the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the Economics References Committee's report Australia's general insurance industry: sapping consumers of the will to compare. I will start by talking about consumers: everyday Australians who are making their contribution to this great country. I'm proud to say, as a Labor senator, that Labor will always put consumers front and centre. The economy needs to deliver for all Australians. Whether it's on the issue of tax, wages or consumer outcomes, Labor will make sure that the economy works for everyday Australians.
Insurance is a complicated matter. I'm glad that most people can access general insurance products that can protect their assets—things like the family home and the family car. However, as we've seen in this inquiry, consumers face difficulty when it comes to finding the right insurance product and for it to be offered at a fair price. The issues I want to talk about this evening are: the lack of protections for consumers when it comes to general insurance; accessing insurance in North Queensland, particularly for strata properties; the level of competition in the insurance sector; natural disaster mitigation arrangements; the merits of a comparison website; and lack of transparency when it comes to understanding an insurance policy.
First, on the issue of the lack of protections for consumers when it comes to general insurance. When it comes to a complex matter like insurance, it's important that everyday consumers are afforded the proper protections, that policies are explained well, that claims disputes are settled appropriately and that what is promised by insurers is fulfilled if a claim is lodged. This report outlines a number of recommendations, including a review of the outdated standard cover regime. Whilst I'm not looking to commoditise general insurance products, it is important that a standard insurance option that might provide a safety net, with well-understood protections and policies, be considered.
Second, on the issue of standard definitions. It's worth noting at this point that the current Leader of the Opposition, in his former capacity under the previous Labor government, did some very good work in standardising the definition of 'flood' in insurance products. It's about time that this work was continued, with issues like actions of the sea. It appears that industry and consumer groups are ready to act. We just need a government who can lead the conversation on this issue.
Third, on the issue of unfair contract terms. It's also well beyond time to remove the exclusion 'general insurance' from unfair contract terms. CHOICE, VCOSS, Consumer Action Law Centre and ASIC all support reform in this area. The duty of utmost good faith obligation does not provide sufficient protection. The general insurance industry should be brought to the same standards expected of the broader economy.
Fourth, on the issue of accessing insurance in North Queensland, particularly for strata properties. Anyone who spends time in North Queensland will know that insurance premiums are a big concern. The message continues to come through strongly in this inquiry, and our recommendations include the following: firstly, the government should release its response to the Northern Australia insurance premiums taskforce report. It is well beyond due. While the government waits, people in North Queensland still face the problem of high premiums. Secondly, the government should also strongly consider introducing legislation to require that all insurance intermediaries disclose component pricing, including commissions payable to strata managers on strata insurance quotations. There's work to do at all levels of government, but, as urban density increases, there will be more strata properties. Owners should be better informed about the commissions paid to the people in the chain, be it insurance brokers, strata managers and the like. It's a murky corner of the market that those involved don't want to talk about, and it's about time that action was taken.
We've also recommended that a review be taken to establish a fact base for the strata insurance market in North Queensland. And Ms Margaret Shaw has continued to provide evidence that it is difficult to obtain the right strata insurance in some areas and for particular types of properties. We need to move from anecdotal evidence to a broad fact base. If there are parts of the market where there is only one insurer, we need to look carefully about how that can be addressed.
On the issue of the level of competition in the insurance sector, when it comes to insurance, one issue that comes up regularly is whether there is sufficient competition. There are some major players who do form the majority of the market, sometimes through the use of different brands. There are different takes on whether competition is healthy in this sector or not. I tend to side with Professor Fels and Professor Cousins that, in many ways, competition is as healthy as it could be with a largely disengaged consumer population. The challenge is how to put the right information in the hands of consumers to improve competition. Three recommendations were made in light of this position. They are: to mandate the disclosure of the previous year's premium on insurance renewal notices, for insurers to explain the increase in premium if a request is received and to consider the disclosure of component pricing. It's all about putting the right information in people's hands.
On the issue of natural disaster mitigation arrangements, one important component of general insurance premiums for assets like houses is the risk of natural disaster events. Mitigation has to be part of the conversation. Groups such as the Productivity Commission as well as the insurance industry itself have called for a sensible discussion on how the federal and state governments could work together to increase mitigation funding to reduce the damage caused by future natural disasters. The response by the coalition government to the 2015 Productivity Commission report was underwhelming, to say the least. It's about time the federal government stepped up to the plate and led a national conversation on this issue.
On the issues of the merits of a comparison website, the major issue in this inquiry was whether an independent, government-run comparison website could empower consumers to get a better deal on their general insurance. It's a worthy goal. There were some good arguments put on both sides of this case. The evidence seems clear that we do need to find ways to better inform consumers of the different insurance products that are out there. In particular, Professors Fels and Cousins made strong arguments, based on work that's being done in New South Wales as well as international developments, that there is strong merit to a comparison website and for it to be independent. They also cautioned that it's important that people are aware of the website. It's no good having a great website if people don't know about it.
However, there were other concerns raised—particularly how such a website might drive consumers to compare primarily on price, which might lead consumers to take out policies that aren't as comprehensive as they should be and in addition have the effect of the hollowing out of policies. We've made a recommendation that government complete a detailed proposal for a government comparison website. The cost to establish and run the website, how the public will be engaged to use it, consumer testing through the life of the website, the structure of the information on the website and dealing with comparison issues such as price and product features should all be evaluated in the detailed proposal. That way the government of the day can make the best decision on this issue.
On the issue of lack of transparency, when it comes to understanding an insurance policy, almost every stakeholder we spoke to acknowledged that the current system of key fact sheets and product disclosure statements don't really serve consumers well.
CHOICE put it well when they talked about this system being developed at a time when it was assumed that the more information you throw at a person, the better informed they'll be, and they'll be better equipped to make more informed decisions. Respected journalist John Rolfe, who's following the general insurance issue and debate very closely, talked about some of the PDSs that are 30,000 words in length. That's hardly appropriate. Even the Insurance Council of Australia admitted that PDSs are lengthy, onerous documents to read. It's time to modernise this thinking. Behavioural biases are well understood in research now and it's incumbent on government and industry to work together to get some sensible outcomes.
In summary, general insurance is a complex area. This report makes sensible recommendations to strengthen consumer protections, improve competition, reform strata insurance and to revisit natural disaster mitigation funding. Adoption of these recommendations will help give ordinary Australians a better deal when it comes to insurance. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present the report of the Senate Economics References Committee on the Australian dairy industry together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Chair of the Select Committee on Strengthening Multiculturalism, I present the report on strengthening multiculturalism in Australia together with the Hansard record of proceedings, and documents presented to the committee
Ordered that the report be printed.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
On behalf of the respective chairs, I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates:
Additional estimates 2015-16—Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 16 February and 16 August 2017—Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Budget estimates 2016-17—Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 16 February and 16 August 2017—Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Budget estimates 2016-17 (Supplementary)—Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 16 February and 16 August 2017—
Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Immigration and Border Protection portfolio.
Additional estimates 2016-17—Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 3 May and 16 August 2017—
Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Immigration and Border Protection portfolio.
Budget estimates 2017-18—
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 21 June and 16 August 2017—
Finance portfolio.
Indigenous matters across portfolios.
Parliamentary departments.
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 15 June and 15 August 2017—
Defence portfolio.
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 20 June and 16 August 2017—
Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Immigration and Border Protection portfolio.
On behalf of the Chair of the Publications Committee, I present the eighth report of the Publications Committee.
Ordered that the report be adopted.
I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees.
I move:
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees—
Discharged—Senator Reynolds
Appointed—Senator Brockman
Participating member: Senator Reynolds
Economics Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—
Discharged—Senator McKenzie
Appointed—Senator Reynolds
Substitute member: Senator Rhiannon to replace Senator Hanson-Young for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017
Participating members: Senators Brockman, Hanson-Young and McKenzie
Education and Employment References Committee—
Discharged—Senator McKenzie
Appointed—Senator Reynolds
Participating members: Senators Brockman and McKenzie
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman [for the purposes of the inquiry into the 2016 election]
Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Funding for Research into Cancers with Low Survival Rates—Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Future of Public Interest Journalism—Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Government Procurement—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Lending to Primary Production Customers—Select Committee—
Discharged—Senator Smith
Appointed—Senator Brockman
Participating member: Senator Smith
Migration—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Reynolds
Appointed—Senator Brockman
National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Hume
Appointed—Senator Brockman
National Integrity Commission—Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Parliamentary Library—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Williams
Appointed—Senator Brockman
Political Influence of Donations—Select Committee—
Appointed—Senator Di Natale
Participating members: Senators Hanson-Young, McKim, Rhiannon, Rice, Siewert and Whish-Wilson
Publications—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Bushby
Appointed—Senator Brockman
Red Tape—Select Committee—
Discharged—Senator Smith
Appointed—Senator Brockman
Participating member: Senator Smith
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—
Discharged—Senator Bushby
Appointed—Senator Brockman
Participating member: Senator Bushby
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—
Discharged—Senator Bushby
Appointed—Senator Brockman
Substitute members: Senator Gallacher to replace Senator McCarthy for the committee's inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin
Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Rice for the committee's inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin
Participating members: Senators Bushby, McCarthy and Rice
Strengthening Multiculturalism—Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Brockman
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Bushby
Appointed—Senator Brockman
Question agreed to.
I table the original certificate received through His Excellency the Governor-General from the Governor of Western Australia of the choice by the houses of the Parliament of Western Australia of Senator Brockman to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Back.
Woe betide anyone who tries to mess with Western Australia. Tonight I rise to address an outrage perpetrated on Western Australia's large and vibrant sporting community—one we are all taking very, very personally—and that is the Australian Rugby Union's disgraceful decision to cut the Western Force from the national competition. I stand 100 per cent with the Western Australian sporting community, with my WA Liberal colleague senators and members, with the state government, with the state opposition and with Rugby WA on this issue. I don't think the ARU has the foggiest idea of what they have unleashed on themselves. Talk about an own goal! If the ARU thought WA would just cower and lie back in the face of this outrage and would not fight back, the ARU is sadly mistaken.
The Western Force is one of Australia's most popular Rugby Union teams, and they have been extraordinarily successful in growing Rugby and developing local players in WA since their foundation in 2005. In the current season, the team were the second-best team in Australia in the Super Rugby competition. Currently they have the third-largest playing base in Australia, and they have no less than six players in the 2017 Bledisloe Cup Wallabies squad—a testament to the strength of the club and the sporting capability and pride resident in Western Australia.
Transparency in public life is just as important in publicly funded sporting organisations as it is here in this chamber. After very carefully reviewing the case made by Rugby WA and the Western Force, I am at a complete loss to understand the ARU's decision. And I completely understand why tens of thousands of supporters are absolutely gutted by this inexplicable decision.
Therefore, I call on the ARU to do two things. Firstly, I call on the ARU to publicly release the information the board have used to justify the decision to cut the Western Force—particularly what they called the 'big spreadsheet' that they claimed demonstrates the decision was in the best interests of Australian rugby. A big, secret spreadsheet—it reminds me a lot of Ros Kelly's great big thumping whiteboard, for those of you in this chamber and elsewhere old enough to remember her whiteboard. Secondly, I also call on the ARU to enter into an open dialogue with Rugby WA and all other interested parties who can propose alternative solutions to the crisis that apparently has resulted in this secret decision.
Today I've also written to the federal Minister for Sport, the Hon. Greg Hunt MP, requesting Commonwealth support to encourage the ARU to publicly release the information on this decision and have the courtesy to open a dialogue with Rugby WA. I've also requested Commonwealth support in making public the basis for this decision by the ARU and ensuring the Western Force have the opportunity to address any issues which have led to this decision. I say this to the ARU: if you have nothing to hide, release the documents, make it public, work with Rugby WA, and support Western Australian sporting fans. If you've got nothing to hide, release the documents and do not hide behind your lawyers.
I rise this evening to speak on the issue of corporate tax avoidance. As Chair of the Senate Economics References Committee, I have been leading recent work in the corporate tax avoidance inquiry. And at this point I wanted to thank my illustrious predecessor, Senator Dastyari, for his considerable work as chair and the initial work which has been completed in this space; it's certainly set the stage for a worthy, considerable policy debate on ensuring that corporations in Australia make their fair contribution to this great country.
Over the last few years, the corporate tax landscape has changed considerably. The OECD has issued significant guidance on the base-erosion-and-profit-shifting framework, which is starting to be adopted internationally. Here in Australia, we have recently passed the multinational anti-avoidance legislation and the diverted profits tax legislation. Some change has been made in the area of tax transparency as well, although it is well known that Labor would have liked to have seen more done in this area.
It's important at this stage, almost three years after the Senate first referred the inquiry, to spend some time to circle back and evaluate where we stand with regard to corporate tax. Is the legislation having the intended effect? Have multinationals restructured to comply, or have they found ways around our laws? How has the ATO responded to the challenges of corporate tax avoidance? How has work on multilateral standards for corporate tax administration and reporting progressed? They are all worthy questions that need answering.
Corporate tax avoidance is not a victimless crime. Whether it's someone else, an ordinary Australian, paying more tax than they should or it's a school or hospital that misses out on additional funding for a teacher or a nurse, it's important that corporations pay their fair share of tax. It's important also that there be a level playing field—that those who properly pay their taxes aren't put at a competitive disadvantage compared to those with sharp business practices.
In recent developments, we've heard from news outlets and from the ATO directly that the ATO has raised $4 billion in liabilities recently, of which $2.9 billion has been raised against seven companies. To better understand this situation and to understand how our legislation is working more generally, we asked several learned academics to appear before the committee last month to put forward their views on how our current corporate tax arrangements are working.
Professor Richard Vann emphasised that much of the work has been 'much heat, little light'. He's concerned that interest in corporate tax avoidance has declined and that more work is needed to be done in this space. Indeed, Professor Vann went on to say yesterday at a conference hosted by The Tax Institute in Sydney that the government is relentlessly eager to talk up the need to attract foreign capital with a lower company tax rate, but the 'elephant in the room' was that rich locals had a lot to gain too. It's the high-net-wealth individuals who will benefit from this tax cut, and this is because they will get a lower tax rate in relation to their bucket companies.
To put this in the simplest possible frame: there is too much give to the top end of town, both to companies and to individuals who operate under complex corporate structures to maximise their returns. While there's nothing wrong with an individual or company seeking to minimise their tax, we have to seriously question those who, because of their wealth, are able to minimise their tax to a point that it's damaging to the Australian economy and, in turn, damaging to everyday Australians. It's simply unfair. It's estimated that trillions of dollars are lost globally each year due to crime, corruption and tax evasion. The local cost of tax avoidance is also high, with estimates that United States corporations avoid an estimated $2 billion of tax in Australia each year by shifting their profits to low- or no-tax countries.
Labor has called these hearings because multinational tax avoidance has been at the centre of political debates in Canberra during the past two years and was one of the key policy issues leading into the federal election in July last year. We've held multiple hearings around the bad behaviour of multinational companies, and the Panama Papers really helped to set the groundwork for further scrutiny, but, now that that has quietened down, it's important that we revisit the issue.
Previously, we've hauled Uber and Airbnb before the committee to face questions about tax structures that allow them to route profits through the Netherlands and Ireland. Uber and Airbnb made submissions to the inquiry arguing that they comply with Australian tax laws and claiming that their Australian operations merely provide support services to parent companies based in the Netherlands and Ireland respectively. But this just doesn't pass the pub test. Similarly, I've also called executives from other multinationals including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Caltex, BP, Viva Energy, Woodside, Santos and Origin Energy to appear at various hearings. Nevertheless, a number of companies, including tech giant Google, restructured their tax affairs in anticipation of laws passing, and others have been negotiating with tax commissioner Chris Jordan. In the absence of any true reform from the Turnbull government, I'm hopeful that these discussions can continue and that Australians receive the flow-on benefits from these companies injecting some of their wealth back into our economy.
Going forward, the next hearing into multinational tax avoidance will be held in Sydney on Tuesday, 22 August, and I will be hauling major tech companies Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and IBM to appear before the committee for a 'please explain' on their corporate tax arrangements. Many of these companies are likely to be included in the $2.9 billion net, so it's important that the Senate and the public understand the nature of the liabilities and understand if, and how, these companies have responded to legislation. Additionally, we'll be hearing straight from Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan so that we can get an unbiased opinion as to how differing pieces of legislation are working cohesively to ensure that outstanding tax debts are paid and that future tax debts won't continue to burden Australians or the Australian economy.
Lastly, I think in our quest for fairness it's only right that, if a company operates in Australia, makes money in our country and turns a profit, it pays its fair share of tax. If we're going to have a debate about multinational tax avoidance, as complicated as it is, we need to ensure that we have the public on board. People need to be able to understand exactly what is happening with Australia's tax affairs. Until companies are able to pass the pub test, they can continue to expect scrutiny from me, the committee and parliament generally. I encourage those listening tonight to attend or to tune in via the internet to find out more about Australia's corporate tax structures and the way in which these structures can be improved.
I rise this evening to speak on the incredible transformation that my home state of Tasmania—and your home state, Mr President—has seen in the last 3½ years, since the election of the first non-Labor, non-Green government in 16 years, the Hodgman Liberal government. This transformation is evident in the improved health outcomes and in how Tasmania is leading the way with employment growth and regional development, as well as experiencing the lowest increases in energy prices in the nation. Tasmania currently is the envy of Australia on so many fronts, a claim that I would not until recently have been able to make, even though it has always been the best state to live in.
Senator Polley interjecting—
I see Senator Polley over there interjecting, and I'm sure she agrees with me on that point, if nothing else.
One of the perennial issues in Tasmania is the condition of the Tasmanian health system. The Tasmanian Liberal government has been working very hard to fix the structural and operational issues left by the previous Labor government. Tasmania's Minister for Health, the Hon. Michael Ferguson, is clearly the best Minister for Health Tasmania has had for many decades. Not only has Minister Ferguson reduced waiting lists, reopened beds and overseen the redevelopment of the Royal Hobart Hospital; he has also had the unenviable task of rebuilding the entire health system after the Tasmanian Labor Party left it in an awful mess.
Compounding that mess was Labor's comprehensive mismanagement of the critically important Royal Hobart Hospital redevelopment. In Hobart, there are physical constraints on the provision of health services while the Royal Hobart Hospital is being redeveloped, and these do pose a challenge. If the former state and federal Labor-Green governments had not mismanaged this important project, or had not managed it as badly as it was managed, it would be built by now, but it isn't. That is their legacy. Despite the many challenges left by Labor's inept mismanagement of health, the Tasmanian government is opening 80 new beds and treatment recliners to take pressure off the Royal Hobart Hospital. The Tasmanian government is continuing to invest strongly in health, funding another 39 additional beds in the north and eight in the north-west of Tasmania.
There were deep failings across the Tasmanian health system, including long waiting lists and failings in governance, clinical and consumer engagement, culture and efficiency, when the Tasmanian Liberal Party came to government in 2014. These issues clearly aren't able to be fixed overnight, and the Tasmanian Liberal government and the federal government have worked together methodically and responsibly to improve the quality of health care in Tasmania.
The hand-back of the Mersey Community Hospital to the Tasmanian government is a clear example of how the two levels of government are working together to deliver excellent outcomes for the people of my home state. The federal government has provided $730 million, which represents funding for 10 years, but paid up-front, to secure the future of this important regional hospital at Latrobe, which, as I am sure you will acknowledge, Mr President, is a key asset for Tasmania's health system on the north-west coast.
Tasmania has created a single state-wide health service, working to end decades-old parochialism in health care and making real improvements to frontline patient care. In the 2017-18 Tasmanian budget, more money will be spent on health services in Tasmania than ever before. More than $7 billion has been allocated over four years. It is important to note that this is $1.3 billion more than under the former Labor-Green government in 2013. Across Tasmania there are now more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals than when the former Labor federal and state governments were last in charge of the Treasury benches in 2013.
The current federal budget shows strong growth in federal funding for Tasmanian hospitals. There is an additional $56 million in total, which is estimated to provide more than $28 million for the Royal Hobart Hospital in additional money, almost $21 million of additional money for the Launceston General Hospital and more than $8 million of additional money for the North West Regional Hospital in Burnie.
Tasmanian hospitals are performing more elective surgery per capita than any other state or territory in Australia, with more 19,000 Tasmanians receiving elective surgery just last year. This is 3,000 more than the annual average. This is a substantial increase and is driving the waiting list to a record low and reducing waiting times dramatically. The Tasmanian government is improving health services and working to address increasing demand across the state, including the rolling out of new ambulance crews and the recruitment of new paramedics, putting downward pressure on response times.
Let there be no doubt that Labor and the Greens left a mess. While there is much more work to do, the Turnbull and the Hodgman governments have delivered real improvement in the quality of health care in Tasmania and will continue to do so. I can say with great confidence that the Tasmanian health system is continuing to improve.
One of the initiatives that I am most proud of being involved with—I am sure you are as well, Mr President—is the expansion of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme in January 2016. This came about as a direct result of the hard work over many months of the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team and the former member for Braddon, Mr Whiteley; the former member for Lyons, Mr Hutchinson; and the former member for Bass, Mr Nikolic, working together with the Hodgman Liberal state government. The extension to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme that the Liberals negotiated has ensured that Tasmanian goods transhipped through a mainland port before being exported are now eligible for the scheme. This extension represents additional assistance to Tasmanian exporters, estimated by Treasury to be worth $203 million over four years to the Tasmanian economy.
Tasmania has gone from strength to strength over the last four years, and I commend the Hodgman Liberal government's efforts to the Senate.
On Monday, following the Deputy Prime Minister's statement regarding his citizenship, I sought advice of the UK Home Office on my citizenship status. By Monday evening, I was advised that a caseworker at the UK Home Office was of the view that, on the basis of the limited facts that I had provided, I was a British citizen by descent through my Scottish-born father. I was not provided with any further information to support that view at that time.
My mother was born in Australia and was an Australian citizen. My father was born in Scotland in 1927. I was born in Sydney in 1965. My parents divorced when I was eight and my mother raised me. I had very little contact with my father throughout his life, and he died nine years ago. My mother died five years ago. Growing up, my parents always told me that I was not a dual citizen. My understanding since early childhood was that in order to be a dual British citizen I would need to apply for it. Indeed, an internet search reveals a host of websites which say having a Scottish-born father allows one to apply for citizenship but mention nothing of automatic citizenship by descent.
I advised the government and the government sought legal advice from the United Kingdom, which I understand was received today and was considered by the government's committee of cabinet within the last hour. The government also sought advice from the Australian Solicitor-General.
I have just met with the Prime Minister and am taking this opportunity to make the Senate aware at the earliest possible opportunity of the position. I understand that the Attorney-General will provide further information to the chamber, but I can advise honourable senators that, on the basis of the Solicitor-General's advice, the PM has indicated to me that he sees no reason for me to stand aside from my portfolio responsibilities. I will also continue as Deputy Leader of the National Party. When the Senate meets on 4 September, the government will move a motion to refer the matter to the High Court, sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, in accordance with section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Senate adjourned at 19:05