Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those proposals? There being none, I call the minister.
by leave—I move:
That the following bill be introduced, be exempted from the provisions of standing order 111(5), and have precedence over all other government business until determined:
A Bill for an Act to provide additional safeguards in relation to the marriage law survey, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present the bill today that will provide for a range of additional safeguards to support the conduct of the Australian marriage law postal survey.
The government is honouring its commitment to deliver on its promise to give the Australian people a say on whether or not the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.
As the government announced on 8 August 2017, the government is proceeding with a voluntary postal survey for all Australians who are on the Commonwealth electoral roll and eligible to vote, with a final result to be known no later than 15 November 2017.
There are a range of measures already in place in Commonwealth legislation to safeguard the public in their participation in the Australian marriage law postal survey. In particular, there are postal and telecommunications offences under the Criminal Code. There is also prohibited conduct under the Census and Statistics Act 1905.
These existing Commonwealth laws are supplemented by existing criminal and civil penalties under state and territory legislation. This includes strong protections already in place for the prevention of hate speech and incitement to violence.
The government is, however, proposing to complement these safeguards with the additional measures contained in this bill, which are broadly consistent with safeguards which would apply in the context of a federal election. This will help ensure the integrity of this process and that Australians can have complete confidence that the outcome of the survey reflects the freely given views of the respondents, and that those participating in the debate can do so in an appropriate environment.
Australians need to be assured there is appropriate transparency and accountability for those who communicate their messages as part of the debate on this issue.
The measures in the bill will support responsible conduct of public discussion by applying authorisation requirements similar to those that apply in the context of elections and referendums. This will promote the transparency and accountability of those making public comments in relation to the question in the marriage law survey.
These arrangements will apply to communications of all forms, including paid advertising, social media, bulk text messages and telephony, broadcast matter under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and printed material.
There are a range of sensible exceptions provided to these requirements to ensure that people continue to be able to freely express their political views, including those engaged in personal communication.
The bill will also impose obligations on broadcasters, including the ABC and SBS, who broadcast matter in favour of one side of the issue about whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex marriage, to provide a reasonable opportunity for an organisation to broadcast matter in favour of the opposing view. Consistent with arrangements during an election, broadcasters will be able to utilise an extra minute of advertising to facilitate compliance with this requirement. Recognising that there are community broadcasters established to service specified community interests, these broadcasters will be exempt from the reasonable opportunity requirements.
Collecting statistical information is core business for the ABS, and the government has full confidence in their capacity to deliver this opportunity for Australians to have their say.
However, we need to be assured that the statistical information obtained has not been subject to influences such as bribery and threats or misleading information about how to complete the survey form, and ensure that those that engage in such influencing behaviour are held to account.
To address this, the bill will put in place a range of measures to ensure the integrity of the statistics that are collected as part of the process.
The bill includes penalties for receiving and giving bribes or making threats to influence or affect people's decisions on this matter, including whether to respond.
It also includes a civil penalty for printing, publishing and distributing matters or things that are likely to mislead or deceive a person in how they respond to the survey, for example, how the survey response is marked.
The bill also includes offences for officers who engage in conduct with the intention of influencing the content of a response provided to the statistician. Again, that is consistent with what would apply in the context of an election period.
The government believes that the Australian people are able to have this debate respectfully and courteously.
We also believe that Australians will judge anyone harshly, on either side of the debate, who pursues inappropriate and offensive arguments.
We certainly call on all Australians to participate in this debate with courtesy and respect.
However, the government acknowledges that we cannot guarantee that all Australians will at all times express their opinions on that basis.
For this reason, the bill will also establish an offence for grievous conduct against those participating in the debate, or against those who may hold strong views on the survey question.
The bill contains provisions against vilification, intimidation and threat to cause harm, as well as for hindering or interfering with a person in making a response, or discriminating against a person for making a donation relating to the marriage law survey.
Importantly, and I stress this point, merely expressing a view about the marriage law survey question does not trigger the offence provisions against vilification, intimidation or the threat of harm. The conduct would have to be vilification, intimidation or threat to cause harm.
While the government would like nothing more than for these provisions never to be used, their inclusion gives the parliament the opportunity to send a clear message that hateful and malicious conduct will not be tolerated.
I remind the parliament that the government's preference was to deliver on the commitment to give the Australian people a say on whether or not the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry through a compulsory attendance plebiscite.
Such an approach would have brought with it many existing safeguards and protections.
As we proceed with the survey as the new mechanism to give the Australian people their say, we need to separately provide those safeguards to ensure all Australians have the opportunity to participate in this process in the right environment.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards (Bill) Bill 2017. This bill cannot cure a flawed process. It cannot stop all the hurt, all the prejudice that is being expressed, all the lack of acceptance that is being communicated to LGBTI persons and to same-sex-couple families. But it provides limited protections, and on that basis the opposition will be supporting it. I want to acknowledge Senator Cormann's work with stakeholders, the opposition and others, the crossbench, to reach agreement on the matters contained in this bill. I also recognise the efforts of Mr Dreyfus and Ms Butler from the Labor Party.
Labor regrets that this bill is necessary. It wouldn't have been necessary if the Prime Minister had shown some leadership on this issue—if he had been prepared to grant a free vote and have this parliament do its job. We all remember the origins of the plebiscite, which Senator Cormann has extolled the virtues of. In August 2015 there was a very long party room meeting to discuss a public vote on marriage equality, and what did we get?
This policy of a plebiscite was dreamt up—another obstacle, another hurdle, another delay; an obstacle designed by hardline opponents, Mr Abbott and Senator Abetz, to make it more difficult for equality to be achieved.
A plebiscite is a pretty cruel and cynical tactic. It is a mechanism designed by those who will never agree with equality in this country on this issue. It's a policy that had its origins in the dying days of the Abbott prime ministership but it was taken on by Mr Turnbull almost as an article of faith. That, I think, has been to his detriment and to the great disappointment of many people in this country. I thank the Senate for its rejection of the plebiscite on no fewer than two occasions. It would have been good if that had led the government to recognise that it was time for parliament to do its job—to do what millions of Australians wanted, which was to get a vote done on an issue that has, regrettably, been unresolved for too many years. When this chamber did the right thing, did what the Australian people sought—to vote against a political tactic—the government turned to a non-legislative method, which is, of course, the flawed postal survey that we are now confronted with. We are having a $122 million survey because the Prime Minister doesn't want a vote in the parliament. There are very few times when you get a number on someone's weakness but we have one: $122 million. It is a waste of time and a waste of money. As I have said, we oppose this survey, but those of us who support marriage equality on all sides have to campaign to win it. We are where we are and we have to stand up for our values.
I do want to make clear that this bill doesn't in any way legitimise the survey process. It is a government trying to clear up a mess of its own creation. In fact, I suggest the bill is itself an admission by this government that there is harm already being inflicted by this survey process, a harm which creates a need for protections. We didn't want this process. We don't agree with it. But now we're in it we have to fight it. As part of that, Labor has negotiated in good faith with the government and we have secured important concessions from the government on this bill, including strong anti-vilification provisions. The aim is to stop LGBTI Australians and their families as well as Australians with religious convictions from facing attack. We thank the government for their work with us on this bill. It's a shame they couldn't have worked quite as hard with us on getting a free vote in the parliament. That would have been a better use of our time.
I won't go in detail to the content of the bill. I understand there is a desire for us to progress this quickly, given the time frame. But I do want to make a few points about hate speech, which has been raised by the Minister for Finance. At the outset we said that we would hold the Prime Minister and the government responsible for the hateful speech, the hateful arguments, which are already being seen in the Australian community on this issue. I want to make it clear: this bill does not absolve the Prime Minister of responsibility for that. This bill provides limited protections but it is the Prime Minister and the parliament that have to continue to set the tone in this debate.
My father was a Colombo Plan scholar to Australia in the sixties, when the White Australia policy was still in place. He tells stories about being invited to the homes of very educated, very polite, eastern suburbs Adelaide people. He said, 'They were very polite to me and gave me cups of tea, but they didn't want me to take their daughters out.' I am often reminded of that in this debate. I will come to some of the more hateful things which have already been said, but I want to make this clear: sometimes prejudice comes in very polite forms. Sometimes a lack of acceptance and disrespect comes with a great deal of courtesy—but it lands, nevertheless.
I think I'm pretty used to this debate, but I didn't want to read John Howard on the front page of The Australian on the weekend, saying again what sorts of families were optimal, what sorts of families were good and why my family's not. I don't want to read that again. If I feel like that, how do you think it feels for the children in same-sex couple families or to LGBTI Australians everywhere to be told politely and courteously, 'Actually, you're not quite normal; your families aren't as good'?
It is so disappointing, but predictable, that those who are opposed to marriage equality in this debate want to debate everything but the actual issue. They want to talk about our children. They want to talk about—what's the phrase?—'radical gay sex education'. They want to talk about genderless societies. They want to talk about a whole range of quite odd, bizarre and unconnected things because they don't want to say what they actually mean, which is: 'We don't think gay people should be equal.' That's actually what they think. But they know that doesn't fly, they know that doesn't work, so they've got to find a whole range of extraneous arguments to utilise instead.
What I would say to the decent people on the other side—there are some, and I count Senator Cormann among them—and to the Prime Minister is: you need to stand up on this. You need to stop our children being the collateral damage of the war against equality. You need to stand up and say, when people tell you that this is about the benefit of the children, that it's not—that the value of parenting is not measured by gender or sexual orientation; it is in the love and care and stability and support and commitment that defines a family. So I would say to the Prime Minister: this bill does something, but it doesn't do enough, and you need to stand up for those Australians who don't have a voice. You need to stand up for our children. You need to tell them that their families are not lesser, are not abnormal, and you need to tell young, or all, LGBTI Australians that they, too, are accepted.
I do applaud the Prime Minister for being part of the I think it's 'Libs and Nats for yes' campaign which I saw on the weekend, but his responsibility does not end there; nor does all of our responsibility, because those of us in this parliament have an opportunity to set the tone of this debate. It is in part set by this bill, but it is in greater part set by the way in which leaders across this parliament, voices across this parliament, speak about this issue.
Senator Cormann said, when he last tried to introduce the plebiscite legislation, that this could be a unifying moment for Australians, and I responded. What I would say today is, if we win this survey, it will be a unifying moment for Australians not because of this government but despite this government. It will be unifying moment despite this government and because of the goodness of the Australian people.
This will be a very difficult campaign. I said I'd come back to some of the things which are being said. We've got robocalls saying that marriage equality will lead to radical gay sex education; pamphlets into the Chinese community saying that homosexuality is the curse of death, that this is about terminating the family bloodline; and a whole range of other, more obscene things. And I say to the Prime Minister: you know what you should do? You should be out there condemning this. You should be writing to the Chinese community in those areas in Sydney and Melbourne where this misleading information has been put out. You should be using the authority of your office to at least ensure you say to people, 'Whatever your views on marriage, the vote is not about these issues. It is not about a whole range of extraneous issues. It is about this one issue, which is whether or not we believe in equality for Australians when it comes to the civil institution of marriage.'
As I said I think in 2012, when I stood here—or I might have been there; I can't remember!—and voted for marriage equality, we've come a long way on this. The Australian community has come a long way. Let's remember it was my state of South Australia that first decriminalised homosexuality in 1975, and it took 22 years for that fight to be finalised across this country, when Tasmania finally did so in 1997. We made progress at a federal level with the election of the Rudd Labor government. We amended over 80 pieces of legislation to remove discrimination against LGBTI couples. Meanwhile, countries such as Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, England, Scotland, the US, Ireland and many others now recognise marriage between same-sex partners. But we are here, and I hope the next time I speak on this it will be after we have managed to win this fight and we can have a free vote in the parliament and get this matter dealt with.
But to return, in conclusion, to the campaign and its outcome, as I said, if this a unifying moment, it will be because of the good-heartedness of the Australian people. Amidst all of the hateful things that are said, politely and abusively, I take comfort from—I take faith from—the sort of open-heartedness and acceptance that I have experienced in my life: on the birth of our children, the generosity of so many strangers, sending gifts, sending cards, sending messages, sending flowers, sending lots of clothes; having people stop me and congratulate us; and the way in which, when we drop our daughter off at school, parents of other kids talk to us and ask us about the latest happenings, or, when they drop their kids off for playdates, sit down and have a cup of tea and talk about what the class is doing. In these simple acts there is an acceptance and a respect that I hope will win in a debate that, thus far, has been too much characterised by a lack of acceptance and a lack of respect. I encourage those on the other side to stand with us in providing that leadership about the nature of the debate to come.
I am rising to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 to say that the Greens will be supporting this bill, given the circumstances that we're in. We've been negotiating with the government and are relatively happy with the outcomes—but, as I said, given the circumstances that we're in. We are on a long, winding, damaging path to marriage equality, but I know we're going to get there in the end. So we are taking stock of where we're at, we are moving forward, and we accept that this bill is going to make some improvements on what would be an even more damaging process.
As people know, the issue of marriage equality is a personal one for me as well as a political one. My relationship with my wife, Penny, is one that's shared by not very many couples in Australia. It's an interesting if not almost unique perspective. When my wife, Penny, and I were married 31 years ago, she was a bloke. So we fitted the stereotype of being the perfect couple. We married in a church. We bought a house. We had two kids. We fitted hand in glove with mainstream Australia. Then, of course, some 17 years later she transitioned and became the woman she truly was. We went from being the perfect couple, the ordinary couple, the mainstream Australian couple, to being weird, to being discriminated against because suddenly our marriage wasn't acceptable. Suddenly, we were weird; we were not normal. Suddenly, if Penny wanted to complete her affirmation as a woman by changing her gender on her birth certificate, we were going to have to divorce.
Of course, we didn't want to get divorced. We were still a happily married couple. We had two wonderful children. But that was what our law said that we needed to do. So Penny's birth certificate has sat in her bottom draw since then. She hasn't been able to use it as her identity document. She hasn't been able to complete that affirmation of herself as a woman. Basically it is because we, as a same-sex couple, are still in our society seen as not being normal. When we presented as a man and a woman, we used to hold hands in the street. We used to kiss in public. But over the last 13 years we have self-censored ourselves. We generally don't hold hands in public. We got used to the fact that, if we are holding hands in the street, we need to be ready for the possibility of having a car driving past wind down its window and hurl abuse at us. That's what the reality of being a same-sex couple in Australia still is.
So we are on a journey to changing that. Australian society has changed incredibly over the last decades in the time that I have been an adult. Achieving marriage equality is going to be an incredibly important marker on that journey. I am imagining that, once we achieve marriage equality, we will continue on that journey where we will be able to hold hands in the street, where we will not have to worry about abuse or violence. We will be able to be who we are all the time. I am imagining that other people who haven't had the privilege that Penny and I have had of being married will be able to have that privilege. They will be truly equal. This is what we are fighting for. We are creating that Australia.
This postal survey is not the way that we wanted to achieve this equality. People's rights should not be put to a public vote. We should have had a free vote in the parliament and got it done and dusted, easily, straightforwardly, without putting LGBTIQ Australians—lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians—through the pitfalls of a public vote. The debate over the last month just shows how huge those pitfalls are and the difficulty of achieving the Prime Minister's respectful debate. We have seen those horrible posters. My social media pages have been filled with the most appalling homophobic and transphobic comments. I have spoken to so many LGBTIQ people over the last couple of weeks who feel that the world isn't as welcoming and safe as it felt a month ago. They feel not as sure of themselves in getting out of bed in the morning and facing what they see can be quite a hurtful and not protective environment. I have talked to mental health providers who have told us of the uptick in the number of people seeking support because of their sexuality or their gender identity.
Basically, this level of debate comes down to a base level that is still there in Australian society of homophobia, of transphobia, of not accepting that lesbian, gay, transgender, intersex and queer people exist and of believing that they should not have the rights of other people. People are feeling justified in passing judgement on others. That judgement has been very hurtful and very damaging to many people. Fundamentally, the reason this postal survey has not been the appropriate way to go is: why should they feel that they're able to pass that judgement? Why should they feel they're able to pass judgement on my marriage, on my relationship with Penny, on whether our kids have been well cared for? They didn't get that chance to pass judgement when Penny and I were the perfect heterosexual couple, but that's where we're at given the determination of this government, despite us here in the Senate rejecting the compulsory plebiscite for all the reasons I have been outlining, to put our rights, to put marriage equality, to a public vote. That is where we're now at.
We have picked ourselves up and are putting our best foot forward. We Greens, along with many others in this parliament now, are campaigning positively and loudly for love, with love. We are supporting this bill today as something that's patching up a damaged parcel. This bill is the string and sticky tape that's holding the parcel together. It's going to enable us to reach our destination of achieving equality. It's a journey that's bumpier than we would have liked, but I know we're going to get there. We will, at the end of this bumpy, quite damaging journey, achieve marriage equality. The provisions in this bill, the sticky tape and string holding the parcel together, that are of particular value—and I thank the government for putting them forward—are the authorisation provisions. At least we will know, when there are damaging, hurtful things being said, when there is discrimination and vilification as part of this public debate, that if the material is authorised there will be comeback against it. And, very importantly, we have negotiated vilification provisions to guard against such hurtful, hateful speech and public debate. I'm hoping that in fact there won't be any legal action as a result of this legislation. I'm hoping that having it will be a deterrent to such vilification and will mean there is a more respectful debate; that people will maybe take a step backwards; that having the threat of legal action hanging over them will make them hold off a bit from what they have been saying over the last four weeks. I'm hopeful—I'm always the optimist—that's going to be the case and that at the end of it we will achieve a resounding yes vote.
I know the level of support in the community. I know that—as long as we can get people out to vote—Australians are fair, are considerate and do want to achieve equality. Above all, Australians want this to be over and done with. Australians want to see equality reached. So many people I talk to about it say, 'Just get on and do it!' That's why we should have had a free vote in this parliament—because that would have been simplest, most straightforward and least damaging, and it would have been a celebratory moment in this parliament. We know that at the end of this non-binding postal survey we will still have to have that free vote, and we would not have had to go through this damaging, tortuous, arduous journey we've been put on. But I know that at the end of it, when we have achieved that free vote, when we have got legislation through this parliament, we will finally have achieved equality and two people who love each other, who are in a committed relationship, will be able to marry. I know that Penny and I will be able to stay married and she will be able to affirm her gender identity. The question we're being asked in this survey is about same-sex couples, but we know it's not just about same-sex couples. People across the rainbow spectrum, not just same-sex couples but transgender people, people who are gender fluid, people of intersex status—these are the people, all of these people, who will be treated as equal under the law in terms of being able to commit to the person that they love.
I'm so looking forward to the weddings that we're going to have at the end of this process, and I'm expecting to be invited to quite a lot of them. I'm thinking of so many of my friends who have been in loving, committed relationships over the years—sometimes decades—that I've known them. There are Felicity and Sarah. Felicity was one of the plaintiffs in the High Court. I look at their wonderful relationship and their wonderful children. I don't know whether they want to get married, but they are the people you should be thinking of; they are going to benefit from marriage equality. There are Mark and Tony; Sean and Jay, who have been engaged and are now just waiting; Kathleen and Helena—I could go on and on and on. These are the people, and their rainbow families, who exist and are waiting to achieve equality under the law.
Achieving marriage equality is a straightforward question of fairness and equality. Every Australian should be able to be treated equally under the law, and that includes being able to marry the person that they love. This legislation is an important part of reducing the damage of the journey that we're going on to achieve that equality. It's fixing up a flawed process, but this is the journey we are now on. I'm hopeful that, at the end of this process, when we achieve marriage equality, it will be a unifying moment for our nation. We will finally be able to include all Australians in our marriage laws. So I am really looking forward to just getting on with it. Let's get this done and we can all move forward and be celebrating love in our society.
I rise today principally to express solidarity with the gay and lesbian people in my own state and also around the country who are subjected to this process, which Labor has argued against consistently because of its divisive nature and its wasteful characteristics. I'm going to keep my remarks brief in the interest of expediting the debate, but people in this place will know that the Senate has referred the conduct of the postal survey to the committee that I chair for examination. In the course of our committee hearings, much of the material that's been circulating has been drawn to my attention. In drawing it to my attention, people speak to me of their hurt and distress at being exposed to material which incites violence, is untruthful, is deeply personal and generally seeks to demean gay and lesbian people, their families and the people who love them.
In our discussions with the agencies that are running this postal survey, in particular the AEC, we have talked to them about the kind of legislation that might be put in place that would protect against public comment of this kind, and they've been very clear with us about the limits of regulatory activity during elections and processes that are a little bit like elections, whatever they're actually called. There are real limitations in the regulatory response. When material is circulated anonymously, it's very difficult to prosecute people or hold them to account for circulating it anonymously. I understand that the bill before us would prohibit that, but I make the observation that some of the actors in this process to date have indicated their willingness already to flout the law with the kind of material that they have circulated. There have been reports that some of the actors circulating the most hateful material have been associated with neo-fascist groups in this country. I raise these issues because I think that we all ought to be clear that, whilst this is an important step forward, we have been advised by the AEC that there are real limits in what you can legislate for in a process of this kind.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody on the other side of the chamber. In contemplating first the plebiscite and then the postal survey the government was repeatedly warned by a range of experts that if they went down this path it would unleash a range of hateful speech that would be extremely damaging to gay and lesbian people and particularly to the children in gay and lesbian families. The government was warned and they proceeded anyway. The blame for the campaign materials that have already been distributed lies squarely at the feet of those who proceeded in the face of such a warning.
I want to conclude by acknowledging my friends in this place and in the other place, gay and lesbian parliamentarians, who have shown enormous courage in recent years as their own choices have been placed under enormous scrutiny. They've shown great courage in this place in speaking about their own stories and presenting their own stories to the parliament in their efforts to speak on behalf of so many others who have less of a voice than we have here. I also want to acknowledge gay and lesbian friends, gay and lesbian people in my community, who go about their everyday lives with a quiet dignity. I want to say to these people that we will stand by you through this process. We will seek to win. But we will play our part also in setting the tone of the debate so that it is respectful and I would call on everybody in this place to do the same.
I rise to speak in support of the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017. Imagine being a same-sex couple, whose ability to marry one another is being determined by a mass mail-out—by a survey. I say 'imagine' because for well over the majority of people in this place that is all we can do. We can't truly understand what it feels like to have our equal right to marry the person we want to spend the rest of our life with questioned and subjected to a process like this. Yet here we are having to vote on a piece of legislation that will try to afford some protection to those people whose very rights are being questioned, to try to implement a law to stop people from spewing venom over a question of love. How sad this debate, the state of our nation, has become. This bill is necessary because of the government's refusal to allow a free vote in the parliament to change the Marriage Act. It has arisen because, instead, the government is proceeding with its proposal to hold a national optional survey on whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.
The legal challenge to this postal survey was dismissed by the High Court last week. While the Nick Xenophon Team respects the decision of the High Court, we do not believe that this survey is necessary. We oppose the proposal to hold a plebiscite on the issue, and while the cost of the survey comes in at slightly less than a plebiscite we maintain that this, too, is a waste of money.
In the August sitting period I identified an opportunity to amend the Marriage Act through the Civil Law and Justice Amendment Bill. This entire survey could have been averted, yet it seems there are some in this place who refuse to declare their hand so that the numbers can be counted and a marriage equality bill can be brought on. That opportunity has passed, just like those that came before it. The fact that marriage equality has not occurred under previous Labor governments or under the coalition government says more about the vagaries of navigating a minority government during the Gillard years and conducting the slim majority under the current Turnbull government than it does about the very issue Australians are now being asked to determine via the optional survey, the result of which is non-binding.
The bill before us should be a bill for marriage equality. Instead, we have before us a bill that aims to ensure that a postal survey has a suite of safeguards in place to allow the expression of free and informed views, while protecting people from being vilified for expressing those views. That the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 is even before us speaks volumes about the nature of the debate already, and the need for added protections.
I'm deeply disturbed by the examples of malicious material that seek to pass judgement on LGBTIQ families which have already been circulated in the community and are designed to mislead and misinform, creating fear, doubt and mistrust. I can only imagine the hurt, humiliation and despair that this material is causing the LGBTIQ community, their children and their families. Indeed, even members of the Australian parliament have contributed to the very low standard of the debate. When suggesting we stop being delicate little flowers and have a proper debate, one wonders if any consideration was given to the distressing mental health statistics for many LGBTIQ people.
The examples I have seen since the survey was announced only serve to drag the debate about marriage equality into the gutter and are less about free speech and more about hate speech. This bill requires authorisations on advertisements and a reasonable opportunity to have opposing views broadcast. It creates offences against bribery and threats, and it prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the completion of survey forms. So-called safeguards against vilification, intimidation and threats to cause harm because of the views expressed or believed to be held in relation to the survey, religious conviction, sexual orientation or gender identity of a person or group are also included.
Will these measures be enough to truly safeguard some of the most vulnerable members of our community? The Nick Xenophon Team hopes so. We want there to be a balance between free speech and protecting vulnerable people from vilification, but the law is not the only answer. In fact, these laws will only apply up until the survey result is declared. Attorney-General George Brandis is also the gatekeeper for complaints before they make it to the court. Once the words leave the mouth of the offender, the harm is done. What we need is for Australians to not only respect each other but also respect that what we are voting on here is a matter of equality.
For Australians who are concerned and not sure about voting yes, I ask you to please take the time to be fully informed on the issue and try to understand it from the perspective of the LGBTIQ community. Antoun Issa, a political commentator and journalist, said:
To be gay is to accept an imposed identity, forever seen in the eyes of society as a "gay" man or woman, regardless of your attempts to minimise it or highlight other attributes of your personality. To be gay is to pursue a lonely road, beginning at that moment you discover as a child that you're an outcast and will never truly fit in. The battle is exhausting; the constant need to explain and defend your very being is exhausting. Marriage equality is not simply a matter of allowing same-sex couples to wed. It's to achieve full equality so the battle—the conversations, the debates, the questions, the taunts, the explanations—will finally end, and we can live in peace.
I have met children of LGBTIQ parents who have told me that they do not want to be weaponised in this debate. These articulate children spoke freely about wanting their parents to have the right to marry. They spoke with more clarity, compassion and insight than many adults in this debate.
Sixteen million survey forms will soon be mailed out. I beg you: please do not vote no to protest this survey because you disagree with it being held. Instead, for those children, their parents, their families and their friends and for the young people who are watching this survey with their fingers crossed, vote yes and vote for equality.
I want to say at the outset that there's nothing in the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill that legitimates this postal survey or the fact that LGBTI Australians like me are asked to go literally door to door to ask for our partner's hand in marriage. The protections in this bill, while important to preventing extreme attacks, do not protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning people from the hurtful nature of this debate. This parliament could have and should have legislated for marriage equality a long time ago with a free vote, because Australia is ready for it.
While I'm glad that the Labor Party has been able to negotiate some important concessions in this legislation that prohibit vilification and hate speech, I wish we didn't have to. I'm pleased that my party remains steadfastly opposed to this wasteful and hurtful process, because we know it's unfair. This is a survey that we in the LGBTI community should not have to suffer through. It's causing great harm in our community and we're already hearing debates about everything except marriage—calling homosexuality the curse of death, saying offensive things about families that don't fit a narrow mould, saying that there's something wrong with our families, wrong with being trans—things that are hurtful not only to LGBTI families but to blended families, single families and step families.
I'm sad to have to put on record today that I know from firsthand experience that the government should not be putting our community through this process. Something very upsetting happened to my own rainbow family this week. My three-year-old son was down at the local shop with members of my own rainbow family, just doing the shopping for the evening meal, when they were handed an anti-marriage equality pamphlet. The pamphlet is too hurtful to repeat here, but it wasn't even about marriage, the quality of my relationship with my partner or the quality of my son's dad's relationship. The 'no' side isn't debating that, because they know that in the eyes of the community they have already lost that debate. This should not be happening and the government should not be allowing it to happen. Sadly, here we are, nonetheless.
These debates are hurtful to LGBTI people and our families. We shouldn't have to listen to this debate about the status of our families and our children. My child should not be subject to debates about the status of his family and his parents. Sadly, this legislation can only go so far in protecting us, because pamphlets like the one my family received will continue to be distributed through the course of this debate within the rules that it allows for. So while I want to acknowledge the importance of this legislation, I want to talk to you about what is most important—that is, to the LGBTI community, to stay strong, as strong as you can; to acknowledge your feelings; to look out for each other; to take care of yourselves and each other. But most of all, we are going to be dealing with this by getting busy to win this debate. We will be getting to work. We will be going door to door, making hundreds of thousands of phone calls. We will be knocking on doors right around the country. It is my plea to all Australians who support marriage equality to please keep an eye out for your ballot paper, which is being sent out this week. Fill it out, post it back, stand up for equality and make your vote count.
From the outset I have to express my concern that this bill has been presented here and is expected to pass by tomorrow whilst we are already in the midst of a debate about redefining marriage. I think it shows a shameful lack of planning from the government's perspective. They've known that this postal vote and survey has been forthcoming for a period of time, yet we're expected to make substantive changes to matters of law and disclosure within 24 hours to prevent a bunch of people complaining about having their feelings hurt—and that's on both sides of the debate. I think it's wrong, because this is essentially 18C on steroids, on a temporary course of steroids to protect people from being upset.
There are elements of this bill which I've managed to read this morning. There are elements of this bill which are wise and prudent, such as the disclosure regime, because this is a political campaign, make no mistake about that. The authorisation is appropriate. I also believe that the demanding of equal rights, particularly through the media outlets, is a wise and prudent thing because, as I said, this is a political campaign, and to dress it up as anything else would be foolish.
In essence, this is the government redefining the states' and territories' discrimination bills. It is trying to override them for the purposes of this campaign and, importantly, it sets some new precedents that are most unwise. We know that 18C has been widely discredited and has been misused and abused in recent times. It is reasonable to presume that we will face the same sorts of misuse and abuse during this postal vote survey process, because people will be complaining and trying to use lawfare as a mechanism in which to silence their opponents. The spurious claims are going to be: 'My feelings were hurt,' 'I feel vilified,' 'I feel alienated,' or 'I'm upset.' And alarmingly, from my understanding, the person who will sit in initial judgement about the merits or worthiness of that case will be the Attorney-General. They will be the person who can interfere and direct things to the Federal Court or appeal against them in the Federal Court.
I don't mean this disrespectfully to the Attorney, but do we really want anyone who is a partisan cheerleader for a side in a campaign to be sitting or rendering any form of judgement about a complaint of the conduct of one side or the other? If that is what this bill does—and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say—I think it is wholly inappropriate. It's not a reflection on Senator Brandis; it's a reflection on any minister, of any political persuasion or stripe, being able to interfere in a judicial process. We understand this is only a temporary action, but one of the things it hasn't done is include a provision to say, 'The spurious assessments under state and territory laws for antidiscrimination or bullying or the hurt-feelings test haven't been temporarily suspended in favour of this.' This is designed to deal with the postal survey vote, but it will not address the misuse and abuse of state and territory laws.
I would make the point that Archbishop Porteous in Tasmania has already been hauled before a tribunal—merely for upholding and trying to teach and instruct students in a Catholic school about the Catholic position on marriage, which is the legally endorsed position of the land. It is the law of the land and finds itself, by some rabid green activist, hauled before a tribunal. That is the shape of things to come and this bill extends it even further. It doesn't stop that from happening. It extends it even further. That is a legitimate grievance for people who are concerned about freedom of speech in this country, who are concerned about the encroaching offence mentality whereby everyone has to be protected from being upset by something that someone else says. It is a growing trend. It is a growing precedent.
We have seen, without these laws, this bill being enacted. We have seen public disclosure, public discourse. We have seen the media actually do its job in recent times. When there's been fake news out there about allegedly homophobic posters being misrepresented by people on Twitter, it has been picked up by the media—misrepresented entirely by outlets like Channel 10—and found to be completely false. The media did its job by exposing how false that was. When a doctor put a position on same-sex marriage and had a campaign of hate waged against her, calling for her to be deregistered, we ultimately saw common sense come to the fore. Even the activist group GetUp! eventually pulled the petition from one of their satellite sites because they recognised how stupid it was. This is practical, realistic action having the intended consequence. The court of public opinion will render its verdict. It doesn't need 'Judge George' in the chamber of outrage to determine whether things are offensive or not. If you have a minister interfering with a legal action—and that's what this bill does—it is entirely inappropriate.
So, whilst I think some of the measures in this bill are reasonable, the haste with which it has been brought on and the precedent that it sets are very dangerous for our country. If people are upset by the fact that changing the definition of marriage has consequences, they will highlight some of those consequences that are being lived out around the world. Some from the other side of the debate to myself will say, 'It's got nothing to do with the consequences; there are no consequences,' while others, like Tim Wilson, will say, 'Yes, there are significant consequences, and safeguards need to be brought in.' How are we going to protect from that? Who is telling the truth in that? Will Senator Brandis sit as judge and jury on whether those things are hate speech or misrepresentations? Where do we end up with this? There's always going to be someone who will complain that their feelings have been hurt. We need to teach people respect and we need to make sure that people are resilient—and that starts in this chamber. That these are intensely personal decisions is one thing, but there is a precedent here and there is a principle at stake here. If we are trying to protect everyone in this country from having their feelings hurt by someone else, we are on the path to I don't know where, but I can tell you it won't be a very healthy path to take.
Opposition senators interjecting—
I am pleased to hear the mirth from those on the other side who have never seen a law or regulation which they don't want imposed and, might I say, which their activist supporters are very happy to abuse. I'm yet to hear one of them denounce the Fairfax journalist who wants to hate rape everyone who disagrees with him—I haven't heard him say that; it is just revolting. They are the ones who are pretending they are the persecuted. That is a problem. This is a matter of principle: if you are legislating to protect everyone from having hurt feelings, you will never stop legislating because there will always be someone complaining about being upset by someone else. I'm not one of them. I regret that my vote won't make any difference in this, and for that reason alone I do not support this bill.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017. I wish that I was standing here right now speaking in support of marriage equality and that this wasn't a vote about safeguards but rather a vote about ending discrimination in marriage. If it were, we know that love would win and we know that we would have marriage equality by this weekend. But this government has consistently rejected the calls for a free vote in the Australian parliament for marriage equality. It has chosen a different course; it has decided to take the question of human rights to a postal survey. The Greens position on the postal survey is on the record and is very clear. We now find ourselves on this course the government has set and we are now discussing the details of how to provide safeguards to ensure that the public debate and the survey itself are conducted in a respectful and safe way.
Let me say from the outset that my thoughts and the thoughts of the Australian Greens are with you, the many hundreds of thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families, who over the coming weeks will have the essentially loving nature of their relationships under intense scrutiny. They will feel they're being questioned and being treated as though they have fewer rights than other Australians. We stand with you. We will do everything we can to ensure that this debate is conducted respectfully and, most importantly, that we win and ensure marriage equality and fairness within the Marriage Act is achieved once and for all.
We have to win. We have to win because it is a basic question of fairness and equality. The message that today's law sends to people right across the community is that it is hurting people and their families. This is a campaign about love and inclusion. We make this change and, in doing so, go that bit further to creating a society which does not treat an entire community as though they deserve fewer rights. That's what this campaign is about.
The terrible statistics about mental health and suicide amongst LGBTI people are a direct result of a society that endorses laws that say: 'You're not normal. You're not equal.' But we know that the majority of Australians don't agree. They want the love of their LGBTI colleagues, friends and families recognised as equal. They know that, for them, this change means the world and that the vast majority of Australians lose nothing. How can we stand in the way of that? Our laws are a relic of a bygone era and, no matter how much some people in this chamber try to cling onto them, they won't endure, because they are holding us all back.
This bill will facilitate the conduct of the postal survey. It sets some basic ground rules to protect people from vilification, intimidation and harm. Importantly, state, territory and Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws and protections that are currently in place will continue through the process of the survey. This bill goes some way to protecting the public from misleading or deceptive material being circulated. The bill requires individuals and entities to authorise material that is produced for the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, to ensure that there is some accountability for the content and messages that will be circulating during the postal survey. We know that there will be deception and misinformation circulated, but at the very least we will now know the sources from which that comes.
I welcome the spirit of cooperation that some within the government have demonstrated in working with the Greens and the Labor Party to ensure that this bill provides those important protections. These protections are so critical because we've already seen the nature of the campaign that some on the 'no' side have run, and the harm that it has done. They will, no doubt, conflate a whole range of issues that have nothing to do with the question of marriage. They'll do it to try to confuse people, to shift the terms of the debate. They will cite dodgy research that tries to denigrate LGBTI people. They will start to challenge the very notion of the separation between church and state. We know that that's what they'll do. But we Greens will support this bill, not because it's perfect and not because it will prevent all of that from happening, but because it offers us a better chance of encouraging a more respectful and a more honest debate—a debate where there is some accountability.
Today we find ourselves at the beginning of what I believe is the end of a long fight to achieve equality in marriage. I am very confident that, with hard work, we can get a resounding 'yes' vote that this government will no longer be able to resist. But it will only happen if people who care for each other, in communities right across the country, are active and mobilised and are talking to their friends, families and neighbours and letting them know why it is just so important to say yes—to say yes for love, to say yes for fairness, to say yes for equality.
We are very pleased that we have managed to get so many people, many of them young people, onto the electoral roll. For 'yes' to win, we now need all of those people, and the many millions of Australians right across the country who are good, decent people, who believe in those fundamental values of equality and justice and fairness, to ensure that, when they get that paper, they mark 'yes', and they do it proudly. In doing so, we can consign these discriminatory laws to the dustbin of history. We can get on with building a more inclusive Australia. We can say yes to equality and we can say yes to love.
I rise today with mixed feelings. The Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 will pass, with the majority of the government and Labor, but I think some points have to be made. I'm uncomfortable sometimes standing on the same side as Senator Bernardi on this issue. Senator Di Natale is right when he said that, if the government had let us do our job, this protection during the argument would not be necessary. Back in 2004, John Howard brought in amendments to the Marriage Act in which he said that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and he brought in amendments to block any legal overseas marriage between people of the same sex being recognised in Australia or tested in the courts here in Australia. He said it was not a job for the courts and it was not for the people to make that decision; it was for the politicians who had been elected and the government of the day. The Labor opposition voted in favour of that change. We should do the same thing. I proudly voted against the plebiscite last year. It was going to cost $150 million, $250 million, $400 million, or whatever, to have the plebiscite. I'm also not in favour of what started as a postal plebiscite and then a postal ballot, and now it's a postal survey costing $122 million. Senator Di Natale is also right in that, if we were allowed to do our job, we could have marriage equality here in Australia by next weekend.
I know that 18C—and I campaigned for change to 18C, which the government blocked—doesn't cover it all. It doesn't cover religion and it doesn't cover sexual persuasion, but it does cover offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. We also have laws of defamation, which could be used if people are offensive, and there are other laws in the various states and territories which could be used if people threaten to cause physical injury to somebody. There are also laws to cover a threat to kill. And there is the huge issue of freedom of speech. I loathe some of the stuff that has come out already on this and will be appalled by the stuff that comes up in the weeks ahead. Just the other day, on Jon Faine's program on the ABC, some cretin said that Hitler was right when he exterminated homosexuals, and that went to air here in Australia in 2017. That is appalling and shocking stuff.
What worries me is that there is a fine. You're liable to a fine of $12,000 if the Attorney-General goes ahead and finds that what you've done breaches the new law. I can see the radicals on the far-right wing of the 'no' vote saying, 'See what they're doing! They're shutting down our argument. They're shutting down our freedom of speech. They're shutting down our right to have an opinion. If you say something that they don't like, they'll fine you $12,000. It's all a conspiracy.' That's where it'll come from. We saw it already with what John Howard and Tony Abbott did, very effectively, during the republic referendum debate. They dragged in every red herring they could—'Don't have the politicians' republic;' don't have this, don't have that—adding all the little extra bits everywhere they could because they knew in their hearts that a lot of Australians—probably told by their mum and dad—would say, 'When in doubt, say no.' They will use that argument. They will try to use it very effectively: 'When in doubt, say no.'
I'm a strong supporter of the 'yes' vote. I only wore this scarf today because I'm cold. I'm a strong supporter of the 'yes' vote and I hope it gets through by a massive number. But it's still only a survey and you still have politicians in this House who say that, no matter what the vote is, they'll ignore it; they'll vote against it. Senator Di Natale also said, 'This is going to happen; eventually, it will happen.' I mentioned the republic. It reminded me that Gough Whitlam once told me this about a republic: 'A republic is evolutionary, not revolutionary.' That's what marriage equality is: evolutionary—but it's just taking too bloody long. Gough Whitlam was right about one thing. He said, 'A republic won't happen in my lifetime, but it'll happen in my son's lifetime.' His son, Tony, is getting on in years himself now, so I don't know whether a republic will happen in his son's lifetime.
As I said, one of the worries with laws like this, where you suppress freedom of speech, and that's how it will be interpreted, is that you end up with what I call the 'David Irving situation'. Holocaust denier David Irving was banned from coming to Australia years ago and it made a martyr out of him. I interviewed him by satellite and tore him to shreds. But you don't want to make martyrs out of these people. I don't want to make a martyr out of Lyle Shelton from the ACL and people like that. They'll come after us. The yes voter will be attacked.
To be fair, some of the stuff coming out of the 'yes' side is putrid. I agree with Senator Bernardi when he talked about one of the 'yes' supporters talking about hate-rape—and in more offensive terms than that. It was a person who appears in the media a lot. That sort of argument is just madness. And, to be fair to them, I know that the people who are driving the marriage equality campaign hate that idea of extremism on either side. The idea of Dr Lai—that petition only lasted for a day, thank goodness—trying to have her credentials re-examined, if not revoked, is bad. That plays into the hands of the extremists on the 'no' side. I know that some of the details that came out were wrong about that Queensland rally, but it was played by the 'no' voters as saying, 'We couldn't even have our meeting et cetera, because all the SSM people blocked us from having it.' That plays into their hands, too.
I understand why the government wants to have this legislation as some form of protection. I don't think it will be as effective as they hope it will be. But I worry about the fact that freedom of speech is a major issue in our lives and freedom of speech is paramount to a good democracy. I just fear that the people on the 'no' side will use this and exploit it and it will hurt the cause that should have come in years and years ago.
Thank you, Senator Hinch. But, on the scarf, I will let you know that today is the warmest day we've had in Canberra for six months.
It is, too. I made the point that Senator Kakoschke-Moore yesterday wore a shawl. There was no complaint about it, so I figured it was okay.
I rise to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017. I do have concerns about this bill that has been introduced into the parliament, basically on freedom of speech. Why are we having to introduce this? I think people will actually have their say on whether they accept something or not. I think this will shut down debate on the issue—a case in point just recently: fathers wanting to put an ad on TV, but it was shut down because it was seen to be politically incorrect. These are fathers that have been putting out these commercials and ads for over 16 years. But, due to case at the moment about same-sex marriage, it was shut down so they couldn't say anything about it. We are going to have the 'no' vote out there being shut down—and I believe that is the case—and I think the 'yes' vote will actually continue with calling people homophobic and they will still keep their campaign going.
I think it is very important that I make it very clear where I stand on this. I personally will be voting no, and I will explain my case. Pauline Hanson's One Nation, in our objective and principles, do believe there should be a referendum with regards to this. People say that it is not to do with a constitutional matter. Under section 51, item 21 in the Australian Constitution you find the word 'marriage'. The marriage then was defined by the parliament as between a man and a woman. Why I say it should go to a referendum is to let the people decide what they define as marriage. Two questions should be put to the people: Do you believe in marriage between a man and a woman? Or do you believe marriage is between a man and woman or someone of the same sex? Let the people decide that. Then, if it is enshrined in our Constitution, as it was in the Irish Constitution when they had the vote, at no further time in this parliament can any members of parliament—and we're talking about 226 at this moment—change the Constitution to whichever way it suits them, where they may, in the future, want to have multiple marriages or reduce the marriage age. I think that needs to be enshrined in our Constitution so that then, if it is to be changed, it goes back to the people. Apart from a referendum, we have called for a plebiscite. Apart from that, we actually believe it is an individual choice, and every member of Pauline Hanson's One Nation will vote in a conscience vote on this matter.
I do believe that there are a lot of things that have not been spoken about here. I heard Senator Rice and Senator Pratt, and they made their comments about it and how they've been hard done by. Someone's feelings and lifestyle are by all means very important, and I do not deny anyone the right to live in happiness and peace whichever way they care to, but I have never heard them say anything about the other side. It's all about them—what they want. I've never heard anyone come out and say: 'What about the other side? What about the people who have grown up here or who are in this country where the majority of people live in a relationship between a man and woman? A marriage is between a man and a woman.' So why can't people look at it from the other side? Why is it all about them? Why can't they say: 'I respect your opinion. You are married. Our marriage laws are between a man and woman.' We have to actually look at it from their point of view.
My concern is: how far will this go? I see now that they want to put this into sexual education in the Safe Schools program. But, apart from all that, let's go a step further. We're talking about people's feelings. We're talking about grown-ups. We're talking about adults. They can make choices for themselves in their life, and so they should, but why take the word 'marriage', which is between a man and woman? Why won't you compromise? Why won't you say, 'We'll have a civil ceremony'? Why don't you try and compromise? You'd get the majority of Australians on your side. You want to take something that belongs to two people—a man and a woman. If it is the choice of the public, I will accept what the public say, as long as it's done fairly.
I want to touch on what is further on down the track for us—and I want Australians to consider this. Once you have marriage equality, you have the rights of any other couple who are married in Australia. What about the rights of the child? Have we considered the children? What may come of this is: kids might go to school and they say, 'I want you to draw a picture of Mum and Dad?' or 'What have Mum and Dad done?' or 'Have you had time with grandma and grandad?' Is someone going to say, 'Sorry. You can no longer call that parent Mum or Dad because it is going to offend the children who don't have a Mum and Dad'? Is it going to be: you must call that person by name—Peter, Anne or John? It is no longer Mum and Dad; it's no longer Gran or Granddad. This is the impact it's having in other places, or so I have been told.
Let's look beyond that and at the social impact this is going to have on Australians. Let's have a fair debate with regard to this issue. I don't think what is going to happen with children has been discussed enough. What are you going to ask? What about the kids? What if they come back and they say: 'You denied us a vote in the parliament. You've denied us the right to a Mum and Dad.' There are social problems with this, and I can see it happening.
When it comes to the plebiscite—what a joke it is. What an absolute waste of money—$122 million that's going to be spent on postal votes. They're being sold now. People are advertising and trying to sell their votes on eBay and other places. They're going be stolen out of letterboxes. People are saying to their friends, 'If you're overseas, then your friend can fill in your card for you.' This is not going to be reflective of what the Australian people want. Why have you pushed this through? Why didn't you save the money and put it to a referendum at the next election? Why didn't you do it in a way where there was going to be a positive outcome?
Whichever way this plebiscite goes, I won't be supporting it because I feel it's a sham. It's farcical. I think it's a waste of money. Actually, I would have liked to have seen the money—$122 million—being put into our family law courts so that we can address the issues of people who are devastated and people who are suiciding, because we can't get the system sorted out. That's where we need to put the money. You're worrying about marriage equality. I say: let's look at divorce and parental equality first and sort that out before you allow marriage equality.
Let's go to the numbers. The stats in Australia state that there are about 35,000 couples. Not all those same-sex couples want to get married. A lot of them aren't interested. That was evident in the 7.30 program, where two gay men said, 'We're not interested in getting married.' I know a lot of gay couples who are not interested. Here we have a few people pushing their own agenda and pushing feeling sorry for them, but it's just not reflective of Australians, who are fed up with this. They are so over hearing about it. I'm constantly speaking to them, and they just want to move on, because there are more important issues in this country—the deficit, suicides, farmers being forced off their land, banking issues; and the family law courts—and we should not be taking up time in this parliament discussing this issue. If we had a true leader, this would have gone to a referendum. The Prime Minister of this country should have had a referendum at the next federal election—a decision made by the public. But he was actually backed into a corner, because he was frightened to come out and make a difference. He was backed into a corner by the Greens and the Labor Party, and he didn't show leadership on this issue.
I would like to go back to something that's in the bill, and maybe the minister can answer this question. In section (4)(b) of the bill, it says:
This section also does not apply in relation to marriage law survey matter referred to in paragraph (1)(b)…
It states in (b) that:
a communication communicated solely for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes.—
I would like to know: what do you classify as 'genuine satirical'?
These are things that need to be clarified and answered. If we are actually going to bring this bill in and someone makes a complaint about it, what time frame are we talking about, because this bill is supposed to go until 15 November? What time frame are we talking about? By the time the commercials go to air and complaints are put in, who's going to shut them down? Who's going to make those decisions? You talk about vilify and intimidate—on who's point of view, if you have a difference of opinion? I've just raised a couple of issues about children—am I going to be seen to be intimidating or upsetting someone? Are we going to shut down the debate so we cannot have a say on this?
I think this is dangerous. More and more, I see a move creeping into our country to shut down debate and freedom of speech by the left-leaning side of this country, who are taking over not only our schools and our universities but pushing their agenda so that I'm in fear for our future generations. I won't be supporting this. I have grave concerns about it. I think that people have a right to be able to speak openly. Like I said, the people will have their say. The people will judge, if anyone is actually overstepping the mark. Therefore Pauline Hanson's One Nation will not be supporting this bill.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 to highlight one point—that is, we need to stop weakening people. Instead, we need to strengthen people. Singling out people, as the term 'LGBTIQ' does, becomes divisive and hurts people. It is the same as singling out people because they're Aboriginals or females or aged or teens. Instead, we need to include all people, and that is real equality of opportunity. We need to stop the division. We need, instead, to unify.
Hate speech, to confess, is not on people's minds because the incidence is low. Most people can understand the point I am going to make in a few minutes. We can deal with hate speech by showing that we don't accept it. That's the key: that we don't accept it. While I empathise with Senator Wong's pain, I do not sympathise with her. I can empathise with any hurt she feels, yet I'm not going to reinforce her pain because all pain in my experience comes from within.
Senator Wong says in her speech, 'decent people will agree with her.' But there she is, subtly vilifying everyone by calling them 'not decent'. That is what has crept into this parliament. To end hate speech, we need to stop separating people, stop singling people out, and stop singling groups out. We need to stop disempowering people, stop weakening people and stop crippling people. How ironic it is that the people proclaiming hurt are perpetuating, prolonging and deepening pain.
We support the people of Australia being heard, as Senator Hanson has just said. Unfortunately, this place—this chamber and the House of Representatives—is in a bubble, out of touch. We should not be taking the opportunity to decide on this important issue about marriage away from the people of our country. It is the people of Australia who are the sovereigns; it is the people who we are supposed to be serving. We need to unshackle Australians, the most wonderful of nationalities on this planet, and we need to unshackle all humans, by treating people with the dignity of being heard. That is fundamentally why we supported the plebiscite. And, listening to people across Queensland, I don't hear anyone raising same-sex marriage as urgent, nor do I hear about vilification, or even trembling about fear of vilification. I only hear these claims in the left-wing media and in this Canberra bubble.
I hear Senators Wong, Rice and others, and I empathise with them. I hear their pain from accepting what some may say to them, but there is a choice: we don't have to accept what others say to us, about us or against us. That people choose to take it personally is their choice. When people speak about another person, it tells me more about the speaker than about their subject. My choice is to treat Senators Wong, Rice and others, regardless of their views, with respect. My choice is to listen, and to do what I can to ensure that people are heard. But I ask, why do some senators let other people's value judgements push them around and control them? Offence can only be taken, never given. As Senator Hinch said earlier on: 'Some cretin said that Hitler was right.' Well, he made his defence right there by describing that person as a cretin. He said that person was a cretin. We don't need any more.
While people in this bubble are working around trying to prop up fragile egos, we see instead carbon dioxide being vilified, humans being vilified, and industry and progress being vilified—and everyone ignores it. But that is a vilification of the human race and human progress. We see energy costs exploding and people dying, yet we dodge the issue or we pretend that we have a solution to the issue. We see government taking control of people's lives, and what do we do, in this bubble? We increase control with more regulations. We see tax crippling our economy, businesses and jobs. And yet what do we do? We increase taxes and we complicate taxes. We see property rights being stolen without redress, and then we dress that up as an issue, to steal more land through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and as other issues.
People's rights must be put to a vote, because non-LGBTIQ people deserve to be heard. Marriage is an institution that transcends this parliament. It is a part of being human. It is fundamental. All views should be respected and consulted—and heard. That's why we in Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party listen to people and always will listen to people. That is our first responsibility. I echo the words of Senator Hanson, who preceded me.
You get a lot of tough talk in the Senate from people with an incredible amount of opportunity, good fortune and privilege. There is this simple argument that offence is taken not given, but when you have the privileges that we have—parliamentary privilege, great incomes, staff, national media attention and soap boxes whenever you want—it's very, very easy to be tough.
All the privileges of a British citizen.
All the privileges of a British citizen that Senator Roberts may have. But what you don't want when you are a 16-year-old kid or a 14-year-old kid is this whole idea of, 'Toughen up, snowflake.' That seems to be the message that's coming out: 'Toughen up.' It's very easy for us to say that from this position of privilege; it's a lot harder for the schoolkid in the schoolyard, for the young adult coming to terms with their own sexuality and for the young kid who may have two parents of the same gender having to cope with what is going to be, and has already been, a horrible national debate. But there you have it from Pauline Hanson's One Nation, who want to make debate on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 about everything other than what it actually is about.
Let's be clear: this bill is not about schools; it's not about kids; it's not about whether you can use the term 'mum and dad' in schools—which is such a patently absurd example and it makes me wonder whether Senator Hanson actually thought it through or came up with it on the spot. This is a bill about marriage. It's a postal survey about marriage. It's about whether two people can or can't marry each other if they are of the same sex. That is all; let's get on with it.
I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate. At the outset, let me say that there are good people across Australia with strongly and sincerely held views on both sides of this argument. By giving Australians a voice on whether or not the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry through the Australian marriage law postal survey, we give Australia the opportunity to more permanently resolve an issue which has been unresolved for some time.
The Australian people have clearly embraced this process:. If you look at the number of people who updated their details on the electoral roll and if you look at the conversation that is taking place right across Australia, overwhelmingly, in the respectful and courteous way that we would like to see this debate unfold. We believe that the parliament will respect the verdict of the Australian people as part of this process. I believe that bringing this issue to a resolution through this process will be a unifying moment. Whichever side is on the losing side of this argument will be better able to accept the outcome, given it is a decision of the Australian people, a decision that they were a part of.
I am disappointed that in parts of this debate today a number of speakers seem to be suggesting that offensive and inappropriate comments have come only from those in favour of the current definition of marriage. That is manifestly not true. Sadly, offensive and objectionable things have been said for many years by people on both sides of this argument, not because of this process, by the way, not because of our decision to give Australians a say and let them have a voice as part of this decision, but because some people will say offensive and objectionable things. What this survey does is draw some of these offensive and inappropriate comments from both sides of the argument out of the shadows and into the sunlight, where they will be subject to the scrutiny of the Australian people. We do trust that the Australian people can handle this debate. We do trust that Australians will judge harshly anyone from either side of the debate who puts forward inappropriate and offensive arguments.
May I say to those who are pushing for change: please empathise with those good Australians who do have sincerely and strongly held views that marriage is between a man and a woman. Please accept that they are entitled to their views. Please accept that, if there is a 'yes' outcome to this process, having gone through this exercise will help those Australians to accept that change.
This bill is not about protecting advocates or supporters of the 'yes' side from those arguing in favour of the current definition. This is about making sure this process is fair to both sides of the argument and ensuring that Australians can have their say in the right environment. This bill is not about protecting one side of the argument from the other. It is about making sure that the process is fair and has the usual protections that would be in place in the context of an election. Yes, there is one part of this bill, section 15, that goes somewhat further than we normally would in the context of an election campaign, in that we have put in place additional safeguards that seek to protect Australians from vilification, intimidation and the threat to cause harm. That is not just because of the comments or behaviours from one side of the argument but to be fair to both sides. It seeks to provide safeguards against vilification, intimidation and the threat to cause harm, not only based on the views that are held or believed to be held in relation to the marriage law survey but also based on religious conviction as well as on sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.
Let me say very strongly to Senator Bernardi and Senator Hanson that this bill will not shut down public debate. All this bill is seeking to do is to try to prevent vilification and intimidation, and threats to cause harm. I don't believe that either side has to vilify, intimidate or threaten to cause harm in order to make their point in this argument. Let me also point out, as I've just indicated, that section 15 of this bill has been drafted in a way that is fair to both sides of the argument. Senator Bernardi raised the question of the role of the Attorney-General, and it is true that, in this bill, the Attorney-General has been quite deliberately included in the process as a gatekeeper on what action under this section will ultimately be able to proceed through to court. It's not for him to make the final decision, so he won't be judge and jury the way Senator Bernardi has indicated but, as part of this process, he will be the gatekeeper. Senator Bernardi has reflected on the fact that the Attorney-General is a well-known proponent of the 'yes' case. I would argue that this fact doesn't prevent him from doing his job as the first law officer of the land, with statutory responsibilities—in the same way that I, as somebody who is a well-known supporter of the 'no' case, am not prevented from putting in place this survey process, which has to be fair to both sides. I would also say that it is well known that Senator Brandis is a defender of freedom of speech, and I think that he will be able to fulfil that responsibility as the first law officer of Australia perfectly well.
Senator Bernardi has also talked about the rush to put this safeguard bill through this process. In relation to that, I would just remind the chamber that it's a matter of public record that this wasn't our preferred process. Our preferred process was to give the Australian people the opportunity to have their say in the context of a compulsory attendance plebiscite, which would have had in place, under the auspices of our electoral laws and other relevant laws, all the usual safeguards that apply to an election. That was not to be the case, because the Senate decided otherwise, so we went for plan B. We believe, and we've always said, that this plan B is a constitutional and legal way to keep faith with our commitment to give the Australian people a say before the parliament next passes judgement on this issue, and that was confirmed by the High Court last week. We respected the fact that, pending the decision of the High Court about the constitutional and legal validity of the process, a number of important stakeholders in this debate were reluctant to meaningfully engage with the government in relation to this legislation. It was only after the High Court made its decision last week that we were in a position to meaningfully engage with all relevant stakeholders in this debate.
We have worked in good faith with both sides of the argument. We've worked in good faith with other parties in the parliament. I would also like to put on record here my appreciation for the way representatives of the 'no' campaign and the 'yes' campaign have engaged with the government. I would also particularly like to put on record the government's appreciation for the way the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, and Senator Di Natale and the Greens have engaged with the government. We have had engagements with members and senators across the board and stakeholders from both sides of the argument, as I've indicated, but, in order to facilitate a consensus on this legislation through the parliament as efficiently as is desirable, it was obviously important that we were able to reach a level of understanding, in particular, with Labor and the Greens, which I'm pleased that we've been able to secure. So on that basis, and having made those few remarks, I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 8219:
(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 31), after paragraph (a), insert:
; (ab) the ability of all enrolled persons, including persons aged 16 and 17, to express their views by ensuring that steps are taken to update the electoral rolls prior to, and during, the period in which the marriage law survey process is conducted;
(2) Clause 5, page 4 (line 18), omit "In", substitute "(1) In".
(3) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 29), after the definition of civil penalty provision, insert:
claim for enrolment, by a person, means a claim by a person who has turned 16, but is under 18, to have his or her name placed on the electoral roll in accordance with section 100 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
(4) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 14), after the definition of Electoral Commissioner, insert:
electoral roll means an electoral roll under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
(5) Clause 5, page 6 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of enrolled person, substitute:
enrolled person means a person:
(a) enrolled on the electoral roll at any time during the limitation period; or
(b) who has made a valid application for enrolment on the electoral roll before, or at any time during, the late enrolment period; or
(c) whose name is on the electoral roll, at any time during the limitation period, as a result of a claim for enrolment by the person; or
(d) who has made a valid claim for enrolment before, or at any time during, the late enrolment period; or
(e) who has received a notice from the Electoral Commissioner under subsection 103B(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 as applied by section 12B of this Act, before, or at any time during, the late enrolment period, but only if the details of the notice are correct.
Note 1: Paragraph (a) includes a person who is an eligible overseas elector.
Note 2: Paragraph (b) includes a person who has applied for enrolment from outside Australia.
Note 3: Paragraphs (c) and (d) refer to a person who has turned 16, but is under 18, years of age.
Note 4: Paragraph (e) refers to a person who the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied is entitled to be enrolled or to make a claim for enrolment.
(6) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 18), after the definition of Federal Court, insert:
late enrolment period means the period:
(a) beginning at the end of 24 August 2017; and
(b) ending at the end of the 14th day before the end of the limitation period.
(7) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 28), at the end of the clause, add:
Definition of elector
(2) Despite the definition of elector in subsection 3(4) of the Census and Statistics (Statistical Information) Direction 2017, an elector, for the purposes of the marriage law survey process and that direction, is taken to include a person who is an enrolled person within the meaning of this Act.
(8) Page 19 (after line 20), after Part 3, insert:
Part 3A—Enrolment matters
12A Updating or transferring a person's enrolment without claim or notice from the person
(1) This section applies if, on or before 10 October 2017, the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that section 103A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applies to a person.
(2) Section 103A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applies for the purposes of this Part, subject to subsection (3), as if:
(a) the word "may" in subsections 103A(2), (3) and (4) were replaced with the word "must"; and
(b) the words ", by 10 October 2017," were inserted after the words "a notice" in subsection 103A(2); and
(c) the words "28 days" in subsections 103A(3) and (4) were replaced with "7 days".
(3) The obligation on the Electoral Commissioner to update or transfer the enrolment of a person under this section applies to the end of the late enrolment period.
12B Enrolling unenrolled person, or placing a young person's name on the electoral roll, without claim or notice from the person
(1) This section applies if, on or before 10 October 2017, the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that:
(a) section 103B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applies to a person; or
(b) for a person who has turned 16, but is under 18—section 103B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 would apply to the person if the person were 18.
(2) Section 103B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applies for the purposes of this Part, subject to subsection (3), as if:
(a) the words "or is entitled to make a claim for enrolment" were added to the end of paragraph 103B(1) (a); and
(b) the words "or has not made a claim for enrolment" were added at the end of paragraph 103B(1) (c); and
(c) the word "may" in subsections 103B(2), (3) and (4) were replaced with the word "must"; and
(d) the words ", by 10 October 2017," were inserted after the words "a notice" in subsection 103B(2); and
(e) the words "or to make a claim for enrolment" were added to the end of subparagraph 103B(2) (b) (ii) and paragraphs 103B(3) (b) and (4) (b); and
(f) the words "28 days" in paragraph 103B(2) (b) and subsections 103B(3) and (4) were replaced with "7 days".
(3) The obligation on the Electoral Commissioner to enrol a person under this section applies to the end of the late enrolment period.
When we were aware that a safeguard bill would be brought to this parliament several weeks ago, we made it clear that our view would be that we should allow 16- and 17-year-olds to participate. Consistent with that position adopted several weeks ago, we're introducing amendments to lower the age to 16 for people to participate in the marriage law survey. It's consistent with our view, and it has been a long-term view, that 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in general elections. We know that in many other jurisdictions, in countries like Austria and Scotland, for example, 16- and 17-year-olds participate in their democracy, with very good results, a high youth turnout and greater engagement in the public debates on many issues.
We think that 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to participate in this survey. Young people can open a bank account, buy property, can work and pay taxes and, of course, can marry. So, in that context, we have long held the view that 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to participate in a plebiscite, should that receive the support of the Senate, or indeed now the marriage survey. It is consistent with our long-held position of having 16- and 17-year-olds vote in general elections. We know that young people are feeling disfranchised from the democratic process, and we know that much of our politics is dominated by short-term thinking, and here we have an opportunity to engage young people who have a great stake in their future. They have a great stake in many issues that are going to shape the course of their lives.
We know that this is an issue that has a direct impact on many young people in our community, particularly young people who are coming to terms with their sexuality, and we would like to afford them the opportunity to participate in this debate. I understand that the government have already determined their position on this, but we—just to put it on the record—felt that it was important that we express our support for that position through these amendments.
The opposition has made its position on these matters clear. First, we have a proud history of advocating for the extension of the electoral franchise, and I'll come back to that point. But, as we made clear in debate on legislation, I think, on Monday when the Greens moved a similar amendment, we do believe that such a significant issue as the extension to 16- and 17-year-olds should be considered fully and properly and through the JSCEM process. For those reasons and a desire to progress this legislation as a consensus position in the parliament, we won't be supporting the Greens' amendments to extend the franchise on this occasion. Prior to the last election, the Labor Party moved to extend the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds in this country and the Leader of the Opposition did, at that time, commit a Labor government to consult on the issue appropriately prior to recommending a change. We believe it's an issue that requires appropriate consultation, and we would recommend that the issues canvassed by the Greens' amendments be referred to the JSCEM, where the Australian Greens can participate and, with other parties, seek appropriate reform.
One Nation does not support these amendments. Reducing the voting age to 16 or 17 is, I think, a bit ridiculous, to say the least. A lot of kids are still in school at that age and very few are in the workforce, paying taxes or providing a roof over their own heads, let alone having a decision in this. That's why the voting age is set at 18 years of age. I think it is terribly irresponsible to want to reduce the voting age—even though it may be in other countries around the world. The whole fact is that we know a lot of our younger generation haven't experienced life. Most of them are still being looked after and cared for by their parents; they have no understanding of what marriage is all about, let alone paying their own way in life, having jobs and paying their taxes. So One Nation will not be supporting this bill at all.
Senator Bernardi, did you have a question?
I have general questions, but not in relation to these amendments.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Di Natale on sheet 8219 be agreed to.
Question negatived.
I thank you for providing me the opportunity to participate in this debate—for your consideration in that respect. Minister, I have a few questions of clarification. Thank you for addressing one of the matters I raised in my speech in the second reading debate: that the Attorney-General effectively will be acting as a gatekeeper to assess the merits or otherwise of any complaints and actions before they proceed to court. Are you able to advise me whether such a gatekeeping role is applicable to any other law or whether there are any legislative impediments to providing access to the judicial system?
Yes, indeed, there are. I'm advised that there are consent-to-prosecute provisions in a range of laws, including the Criminal Code.
Let me get this straight, Minister: you're saying that there are legislative provisions that determine whether an individual citizen has access to our legal systems in order to resolve an issue that they have. I would ask for perhaps some examples where access to justice is first assessed by the Attorney-General.
In relation to examples, I'll have to take that on notice. My advice is that there are consent-to-prosecution provisions in various laws, as I've indicated, including the Criminal Code. I concede that the arrangement here is somewhat unusual. That is because of the unusual circumstances we're in. The measure is designed to be a safeguard to ensure that there is an appropriate check and balance on protecting freedom of speech.
Without labouring this point, if this is such a good idea for this bill, why is it that the Attorney-General doesn't act as the gatekeeper for a whole range of other complaint mechanisms that go through to tribunals, rather than an independent judiciary?
Ultimately the independent judiciary would, of course, consider any complaint and make relevant decisions independently. I think that these are matters that are appropriately considered by the parliament on a case-by-case basis as to whether the public interest in a particular circumstance warrants the approach that the government has taken on this occasion. In all of the circumstances, we believe that the circumstances and the context for this legislation do warrant this approach.
Minister, I think you made the point that the independent judiciary will be able to consider it, but only if the complaint is approved by the Attorney-General in the first place, and I just think that is fundamentally wrong. I think it is entirely flawed and indicative of how this has been put together at very short notice. You may respond to that later, but I have some other questions of clarification. The circumstances are that there has already been campaign material released, including videos online, memes in social media, various ads, posters and things. Will these need to be updated once this bill passes, which it will, to ensure that they comply with authorisations and any other requirements contained in this bill?
I thank Senator Bernardi. The provisions in this bill will apply from commencement until 15 November 2017. That means that they don't apply retrospectively to communications that have been made in the past, but any communications distributed by relevant means from the commencement of this bill will need to comply with all the relevant requirements, including the authorisation requirements. May I say that the leadership of both sides of this argument were advised very early on of the government's intention to move along these lines. Progressing this legislation was held up by the legitimate process in front of the High Court because, for understandable reasons, a number of key stakeholders were not prepared to meaningfully engage on this until the High Court had resolved the questions on the validity of this process, which, of course, it now has. But the answer to the question is that, from the commencement of this bill, any communication and any material that is distributed has to carry the authorisations as provided for in this bill.
Minister, I'm not trying to make a political point here. I think it's a very important point. Materials have been published already and they have been prepared and not released. When does the authorisation have to be placed on them? Will it be from when this bill passes through the parliament or from royal assent? What happens if material continues to be supported or displayed that had previously been published without an authorisation? It's essentially a very practical step, Minister.
I thought I had addressed this. To be very clear: what is relevant is not when material is printed or prepared; what is relevant is when material is distributed in the public domain. From the commencement of this bill, which will be on royal assent, all relevant material under this legislation that is distributed will have to carry the appropriate authorisations on the terms and conditions as provided for in this legislation.
So, Minister, anything that has been publicly displayed, printed, broadcast or shared before royal assent will not have to carry the authorisation, if it continues to circulate in its existing form?
No, that is not what I've said. Anything that has been circulated, published or distributed in the past—that's in the past—obviously can't be changed, but anything that is published, circulated, distributed or in the public domain as part of this campaign from the commencement of this bill will have to carry the appropriate authorisation. Let me say here again that the leadership of both campaigns were advised right from the outset that it would be the government's intention to put safeguards in place similar to those that would apply in the context of an election campaign, including the authorisation requirements, so that is not something that should have come as a surprise to anyone.
Let me be more specific. If someone has prepared a video or a Facebook post about this campaign and has published that without authorisation, and then they choose to share that again or put it on a different Facebook site, do they have to rework the material, if it's just an extension of what has already been out there? Will you have to take these posts down and reauthorise them after the passage of this bill? It's a very practical thing. It's not about an orchestrated campaign or the 'yes' or 'no' campaign. It is for the independent contractors, if you will, or the campaigners who feel strongly about this material and may have put some stuff out there already.
Anything that is published after the commencement of this bill will have to be appropriately authorised. If somebody wants to share material that falls under the provisions of this legislation, from the commencement of this bill it will have to be appropriately authorised.
So if someone, after the royal assent, decides to share something that had been previously published, they will find themselves in offence with this bill and could find themselves before the assessment process of the Attorney-General for liking or sharing or publishing something that already has been published. Is that correct?
Senator Bernardi now is conflating two different issues. The Attorney-General has no role in relation to managing compliance with authorisation requirements. Authorisation requirements are managed in the usual way, through the Australian Electoral Commission, under this legislation, and, as is always the case in the context of an election campaign, relevant material will have to be properly authorised, which is something that was flagged by the government right from the outset, which is precisely what would have been the case if the Senate had passed legislation to put in place a compulsory attendance plebiscite. That's precisely what would have happened in that scenario, and it is going to be the case under this bill, if the Senate passes it.
Thank you. I am no better informed, Minister. I understand you're saying exactly what the facts may be, but they don't assist in this circumstance. Let me give you a particular scenario. If we accept that Senator Dastyari, for example, has produced a video advocating for the redefinition of marriage—
True. So far, true.
Thank you, Senator Dastyari. That's why I chose it—because I know it's true. If it doesn't contain the appropriate authorisations, but I decide to retweet it after royal assent of this bill, will I be in breach of the act? Or, if it is not Senator Dastyari but some unknown meme artist who has put something on Twitter, who may be in breach of the act: if I retweet it, would I then be in breach of the act because I'm acting as a publisher or a promoter of such?
The arrangements are precisely the same as they would be during an election campaign. Paid advertisements obviously have to be authorised. In relation to the sorts of matters that Senator Bernardi describes, if they directly relate to the marriage law survey or to the question before the Australian people as part of the Australian marriage law postal survey, then these matters would have to be appropriately authorised, which is precisely the way this would be handled in the context of an election.
I just have a follow-up point of clarification, because I thought that was quite a fair question. I think the point that Senator Bernardi is making on this is that, a lot of times in these kinds of situations, when we're dealing with social media and other matters, people can wrongly or inadvertently—and it's not their fault; we're all professional politicians; we follow the passage of laws; we're well aware of the Electoral Act and other matters—get themselves involved in the passing on of different bits of information without realising what the consequences of that are going to be. It's not their fault. There is a lot of material out there at the moment that, once the passage of this legislation occurs, would not comply with what we are looking at possibly passing today. That's not malicious—the rules were not in place.
I note that Senator Bernardi and others have created social media content. I have personally created social media content. It's a healthy part of the debate. People have created videos, memes or images to promote their cause and to explain things to different people, and they've gone out there and actively shared this type of information. I think the point that Senator Bernardi is making—and I think it's an important point of clarification—is that it's understandable that content producers, be they the marriage equality central campaign or larger political parties, would now be able to make sure that future material is authorised and they may even be able to deal with material that already exists. But, in this social media world, material has been created, which the content creators have now lost control of, and other people have taken and used it and are sharing it around the place. Minister, I understand how the act works, but the difference between the act and what we're addressing now is that, when we deal with election campaigns, because it is already in place, the material itself has normally been properly authorised by the content creators, be they political parties, larger organisations, trade union councils, minerals councils or whoever. But could you clarify for me whether people acting in good faith would be in breach of this legislation if next week some older material that didn't have the proper authorisation were to be shared?
I have pretty well answered all of these questions. From the commencement of this bill, the authorisation requirements will apply in the usual way, and the Electoral Commission will administer them in the usual way. They don't take a heavy-handed approach to compliance in the first instance, and I would expect them to take into account the relevant circumstances. But let me say that relevant material that falls under the relevant provisions of this bill will have to be authorised from the commencement of this bill, consistent with section 6 of this bill, which is precisely what we're seeking to achieve. It is something that the government has well and truly telegraphed right from the beginning of this process. This is not something that is new in any way, shape or form. You'll find that a lot of the material that has been distributed or broadcast has carried authorisations, even though there wasn't yet a legal provision or a legal requirement.
Continuing on with authorisation, I'm interested to know how these authorisation provisions differ from the authorisation provisions in the Electoral Act, in particular where there is greater focus on social media and other means of communication which haven't yet been covered by the Electoral Act. How do you see that working in terms of authorisation for social media posts, phone calls and text messages—where I can see potential issues? Similarly, we don't have authorisations on T-shirts and other small materials, which are going to be difficult to authorise. How will this legislation cover the authorisations of these new media?
The Senate would be aware that, earlier this week, we actually did pass modernised authorisation requirements for the purposes of an election period which cover things like so-called robo-calls, text messages and the like. This bill is 100 per cent consistent when it comes to the breadth of the authorisation requirements of these sorts of platforms. It's entirely consistent with what the Senate endorsed earlier this week.
Minister, just to clarify, you say that the bill will not come into effect until it has been ratified. When will that happen? When will it receive royal assent?
It obviously depends on when the bill passes the parliament. Assuming it passes the Senate, it will go to the House of Representatives. The government would like to think that the House of Representatives will also deal with this legislation swiftly. We would recommend royal assent to the Governor-General at the earliest opportunity, because, of course, our intention is for these additional safeguards to be in place as soon as possible. But I can't give you a specific time because it depends on the processes of the parliament.
This becomes null and void from 15 November. From other bills in this place, we know that it could take at least two or three months for royal assent. You can't envisage that. So is it worthwhile to pass this bill?
Yes, it is worthwhile to pass this bill. When I say that the government will be taking steps to recommend to His Excellency the Governor-General royal assent as quickly as possible, we will propose for that to happen within days, I would say. The outer limit would be within days, but it would be as swiftly as possible.
On the fines that can be created, section 4 of the bill states:
A person may, for example, be liable to a civil penalty if the person vilifies, intimidates or threatens to cause harm to another person or persons because of:
(a) views expressed or held, or believed to be held, by the other person or persons in relation to the marriage law survey question ...
Minister, does this mean that you're going to shut down people from expressing their views held with regard to same-sex marriage?
No; clearly not. If you go to section 15(2), on conduct, in the first instance nobody will be found to have breached the anti-vilification, anti-intimidation and anti-threat-to-cause-harm provisions by reason only of the expression of his or her views about the marriage law survey question. There has to be the additional element of vilification, intimidation or threat to cause harm. Because Senator Hanson raised this in her speech in the second reading debate, subsection 15(3) also specifies:
... does not apply if the conduct is done reasonably and in good faith and is:
(a) the reporting of news, the presenting of current affairs or any editorial content in news media ...
that's self-explanatory—
or
(b) the communication of matter solely for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes ...
My advice is that is consistent with similar provisions that would apply in an election context.
The bill finishes on 15 November. If a complaint is made under 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by anyone vilified, insulted, offended, humiliated or intimidated, it can take up to 18 months. What provisions have you taken into account? Who will they complain to if there is a complaint? And how is it going to be dealt with if this bill finishes on 15 November?
If this bill is passed, the law will apply during what is called the 'limitation period', which is the period from the commencement of this legislation to 15 November. If an act in breach of this section were to take place during that limitation period, between commencement and 15 November 2017, any processes that flow from that would continue until they're resolved.
The government hopes, and I believe the parliament hopes, that these provisions will not have to be used at any one point in time. That is because we would like all Australians to engage in this debate and express their views freely but with courtesy and respect. We don't believe that, to make the point on either side of this argument, there is a need for vilification, intimidation or threats to cause harm. I think people on both sides of the argument can make their points in support of their side of the argument in a way that is courteous and respectful. It is our hope that the parliament sending this message that we will not tolerate vilification, intimidation or threats of harm is sufficient to prevent that behaviour occurring. But, in the end, there is the opportunity for action to be taken by the Attorney-General—the gatekeeper—who will make the judgement as to whether or not the action proceeds to the next stage.
Minister, I have one last question on vilification, intimidation and how people feel. It is a known fact that a lot of people are bringing signs to protest rallies and so on, and those for the 'yes' vote have signs saying 'homophobic' or 'you're a bigot'. Would that be classified as vilification? Would those people be charged under this act?
It's not going to be my judgement. What I would say is that we should err on the side of freedom of speech, and that is certainly the intention, but this provision will help to ensure that extreme behaviour on both sides of the argument can be properly addressed.
There is a safeguard here, of course, because the Attorney-General has to make the judgement as to whether he will consent to prosecution. That is a deliberate safeguard. Anti-vilification and similar sorts of provisions that seek to provide safeguards against intimidation and threats to cause harm have been in place at a state level for some time. There are established processes and understandings on how these things are pursued. We believe that, in the context of an eight- to nine-week period, hopefully we will not need to pursue any actions under this particular provision.
Minister, I'd like to just move to part 3, proposed section 12 of the bill, which is about allowable broadcasting of non-program matter. It may be that I've missed something here, but proposed section 12(1) (a) and (b) talks about non-program matter—which I take to be commercials—and says that, between 6.00 pm and midnight, a primary commercial television broadcasting service is allowed to have 14 minutes 'provided that on average no more than 13 minutes per hour comprises non-program matter that is not marriage law survey matter'. Yet proposed subsection (2) says, in relation to commercial television broadcasting, that between 6.00 pm and midnight, which is the same time frame, 'up to 15 minutes per hour, plus one minute per hour of non-program matter that is marriage law survey matter'. So my reading of it suggests it's 14 minutes, maximum, and then it's 16 minutes in the other one. What have I missed?
Firstly, what I would say is that these provisions are literally a copy and paste out of the relevant provisions that apply during an election period. The second point is that one is a cap within the hour and the other refers to an average during the day on an hourly basis. That's the reason for the difference. It is 100 per cent consistent with equivalent provisions that would apply in the context of an election campaign.
It says:
… the licensee may schedule, on average, in each hour no more than the following amounts of non-Program matter:
(a) between 6.00 pm and midnight—14 minutes, provided that on average no more than 13 minutes …
That is the average that is not marriage law survey. Provided that the averages in subsection (1) are met, subsection (2) says:
… up to 15 minutes per hour, plus one minute per hour of non-Program matter …
That is for the same time period. One is saying that there's a maximum of 14 minutes, provided that, on average, there are no more than 13 minutes, and the next one says it's up to 15 minutes, plus one minute per hour of non-program matter.
It is as I said: one relates to the daily average. As the second subsection then indicates, as long as that daily average is complied with, then, within any one hour, there is the flexibility to go up to 15 minutes per hour plus one minute per hour of non-program matter that is marriage law survey matter. Essentially, as long as you comply with the average per hour on a daily basis, in any single hour, you are able to take advantage of the relevant provisions in subsection (2).
Minister, you'll be pleased: I'm going to wrap up shortly—maybe not; I've got a few more pages. The obligations of broadcasters were about presenting equal sides. In respect of advertising, is there a requirement for broadcasters to make available equal time within those 14-, 15- or 16-minute averages that are specified here in the bill?
I have to correct you here: what we are legislating here is not a provision for equal time. What we are legislating here is a provision for reasonable opportunity. It does apply to both programming and advertising.
I thank the minister for that clarification. In a scenario which we've seen, one of the national broadcasters, SBS, refused to run particular advertisements during programming. Would they be within their rights to refuse to carry programming because they disagreed with the content, which complied with the law and all the legal restrictions but didn't fit within their philosophical framework?
The precise purpose of this provision, as would be the case in the context of an election campaign, is to ensure that all broadcasters, including the ABC and SBS, provide reasonable opportunity for both sides of the argument to be heard. The answer to your question is that SBS should not be able to deny the opportunity for the 'no' side of the argument to put their case.
Thank you, Minister. I'm not trying to conflate it, but does that apply equally to advertising and broadcast matter? I understand the intention was to ensure that broadcast matter for programming gave reasonable opportunity, but it applies equally to advertising—is that correct?
I can confirm that it applies equally to both.
The CHAIR: The question is that the bill stand as printed.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I return to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. Pauline Hanson's One Nation supports the government's broadcasting reform bill with changes we believe will bring better media coverage and support to rural and regional areas of Australia, and accountability for Australian taxpayers. Media diversity in Australia has changed over the decades, but not to the extent that it has since the introduction of digital media and the internet. The two-out-of-three cross-media reach rule prohibits a person controlling more than two out of three regulated media platforms—that is a commercial television broadcasting licence, a commercial radio broadcasting licence and an associated newspaper in any one commercial radio area. Unless a newspaper publishes at least three times a week, it does not come under the two-out-of-three cross-media reach rule. How many newspapers have we seen go under due to the lack of support?
Channel Ten is struggling to survive, as is the case with many media outlets, whether television, newspaper or radio. This is going to be the norm for a lot of media companies unless change is made. Is their failure due to poor management, poor content or not producing a product that the public want? I would say yes. From a personal point of view, I rarely watch Channel Ten, on the odd occasion when I do have time to watch television. CBS, an American company, put in a bid to buy Channel Ten. I don't believe it is in Australia's best interests to allow an American left-wing media company to buy Channel Ten.
I have stated my concern in many other areas in regard to the foreign ownership of Australian assets, business and land. We have to stop the takeover of our country. Do we want or need a mirror image of our ABC, a left-wing dominated organisation that is biased in their reporting and presentation of programs, and that is not reflecting a fair and balanced approach, especially when it comes to political issues? This brings me to One Nation's request that the government introduce legislation to insert the words 'fair' and 'balanced' into the existing subsection 8(1)(c) of the ABC Act. This amendment would mean the relevant subsection would state:
(1) It is the duty of the Board:
(c) to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the corporation of news and information is fair, balanced, accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism …
I have had complaints from the ABC about this inclusion in the charter. They don't want this because, heaven forbid, they may be held to account by the public. Let me tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, since 1996, I have had a battle with the ABC—not all of the journalists but most of them. Rural ABC have given me more of a fair go—fair and balanced reporting—but their counterparts in the cities, excluding Steve Austin from ABC Radio Brisbane, are reluctant to let their biased opinions get in the way of a good interview, or they try to stitch me up, as was the case when I appeared on Q&A. This was also evident when I appeared on Australian Story in 1999. The producer Wendy Page was given the assignment. After having worked with me for the best part of six weeks, she informed me she didn't want the assignment in the first place but intended to do the best she could to present my story. When her colleagues discovered she was doing a fair story, she was shunned and abused and faced barriers that she had never faced before. She also came across footage filmed by the ABC where I was dressing down all the media for their biased reporting of me during an election campaign. I had asked it to be off the record. I had been told, 'Of course it was,' and the words used were, 'We are honourable people.' This was not the case with regard to the ABC. They kept filming, with the camera sitting on the floor to make it appear they were not filming. Wendy Page used that footage in her story of me.
The ABC receives over $1 billion a year from the Australian taxpayer. We are not all left-wing bleeding hearts wanting to open our borders to illegals and refugees. We are not all supporters of gay marriage. We are not all supporters of corrupt unions and socialist agendas. We are not all supporters of becoming a republic. And we are definitely not all supporters of destroying our Australian identity, culture and way of life to continue the push for multiculturalism and forever saying sorry.
In December 2016, a complaint was upheld that immigration minister Peter Dutton was inaccurately described as making inflammatory statements about Lebanese Muslims that he did not in fact make. In October 2016, a complaint was upheld that a report on the Safe Schools program was not impartial and did not give airtime to controversies surrounding the program. There are no similar examples of bias or overreach favouring the right side of politics and, under questioning during Senate estimates, the ABC was unable to provide any such examples. 'Fair and balanced' means just that. There are two sides to an argument or debate, and this is not presented in many of the ABC's programs or by its commentators, reporters and board. It will be very interesting to see their fair and balanced comments in relation to same-sex marriage.
One Nation has also asked for transparency in relation to the salaries provided to the senior staff and on-air talent of our national broadcasters. The taxpayer has a right to know what remuneration is being paid to ABC staff. It is no different to my pursuit of the excessively high remuneration packages paid to the CEO of Australia Post, the CEO of NBN, and those in other government positions. When you have one ABC presenter who appears on TV one night a week for an hour and receives via the taxpayer more than $350,000 a year, according to figures released a few years ago, it doesn't pass the pub test. If the ABC is confident that their remuneration packages are fair, why are they so reluctant to let the public know about them? They have fought tooth and nail to keep them confidential and they continue to do so.
One Nation also wants a stronger focus from the ABC on providing services to rural and regional Australia by way of a regional advisory council and a requirement that the ABC board have at least two non-executive directors who have a substantial connection to, or experience in, a rural and regional community through business, industry or community involvement. We are calling for a better outcome for rural and regional Australia. How can the ABC justify spending only 17 per cent of their funding in rural and regional Australia when 35 per cent of the people live there?
As I said before, the ABC receives just over $1 billion a year in government funding. Is it fair to say their importance to the Australian public is to provide a service that is not provided by the private sector in general? Because the ABC is an advertising-free network, they rely on government funding. So it begs the question: why is the ABC begging for programs—for excessive amounts of money—against commercial stations that will advertise during their broadcasts and give the companies a return on their investment, and pay taxes? If we intend to have diverse media outlets in Australia, then the ABC has to get out of trying to compete with the commercial market. Bidding on the World Cup that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars is not in the public's interest. If the ABC chooses not to, then I suggest that the ABC forgo taxpayer funding, become a commercial enterprise on the same level playing field and see how well it does without its slush fund.
Senator Jacqui Lambie made some ridiculous statements that One Nation wants to cut the ABC budget. This is all speculation on Senator Lambie's part. For the information of Senator Lambie and others and to set the record straight, it was never discussed with the minister or his advisers. I intend to pursue the ABC's funding with the relevant minister at some appropriate time in the future. The ABC is no different to any other government organisation funded by the taxpayers, and I will pursue with it with regard to accountability and value for money. Senator Lambie is trying to justify her reason for not voting with the government, although she does agree with getting rid of the two-out-of-three rule, by blaming One Nation. I suggest that Senator Lambie pick up the phone and talk to me, rather than ignoring the facts, like so many others in this place, who are ready to have a swipe at me to try and make themselves look good.
I am very pleased to be able to assist community radio in small and remote towns. Local community radio stations are the glue that binds communities together. For locals, it is a job of love carried out by locals who give up their time to keep their communities informed. One Nation has secured an extra $12 million in total funding for community radio over the next four years. Part of that funding will enhance the industry's existing national training program to focus on management and small business skills as well as other training. The grants will enhance their online presence, including the establishment of a central online streaming portal, which will provide more content relevant to local communities and enhance the diversity of media services available to their audiences. There is also provision for additional funding towards the expansion of the national radio news service to assist community broadcasters to maintain or enhance their provision of news content. An additional $2 million will support the rollout of community digital radio by extending the time frame by two years till 2021.
Australians have seen too many iconic assets and too much land in the hands of foreign ownership. Most of the time we are treated like mushrooms and told by our leaders that it is in our best interests to privatise and sell to foreign investment because of the money it brings into the country. The truth is that successive governments have failed to balance the budget. One Nation will not stand by and continue to see this happen. If we can't stop it, at least we will know who is buying us up. We are asking for a register of foreign ownership interests in regulated media assets—be it associated newspapers, commercial television broadcasting licences or commercial radio broadcasting licences. Under the proposal, foreign persons, as defined in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, would be required to disclose holdings of 2.5 per cent or higher of these regulated media assets. Any foreign bid of five per cent or more will still have to go to the Foreign Investment Review Board for approval.
I note Senator Bernardi is moving amendments to this bill. The first time I saw these amendments was last night. It's quite interesting that Senator Bernardi is now calling for a public register of foreign-owned media, a rural and regional advisory council, changes to the ABC charter and remuneration—declaration of the names of public employees' whose total remuneration exceeds $200,000. He is also calling for the ABC to be 'fair and balanced'. Well, I might say that is everything that One Nation has been talking to and negotiating with the government about, and it has been out in the public arena for quite some time now. I am amazed that Senator Bernardi has not spoken to me about this. It's quite interesting that, when I called for it to be fair and balanced, I remember Senator Bernardi saying to me that he wished he had come up with that himself. Although I see he is supporting everything I have been discussing with the government, he has not discussed it with the government. It will be interesting to see if Senator Bernardi does actually vote with the government to pass this bill.
One Nation, as I said, took into consideration the opinions and concerns presented to us from many media outlets, interested groups and journalists, in coming to our decision to help pass this bill. Media outlets are struggling and journalists are losing their jobs due to an ever-changing media environment that now heavily uses the internet. I am continually fighting against any Australian losing their job. Removing the two-out-of-three rule and the 75 per cent audience reach rules would reduce the regulatory burden on the media industry and enable them to better compete in the modern media environment.
These two bills that we're speaking about now, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017, together achieve most of the agenda outlined by the Minister for Communications earlier this the year. On 6 May, Minister Fifield announced a number of broadcasting sector measures, including: repealing the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule and the 75 per cent audience reach rule and amending local programming obligations; amending the anti-siphoning scheme list; abolishing broadcast licence fees and datacasting changes; applying a fee for the spectrum used by broadcasters; imposing restrictions on gambling advertised in live sporting events across all platforms by codes of practice for broadcast platforms and by legislation for other platforms; a review of Australian and children's content; and funding to subscription television for women's and niche sports. Of these seven reforms, the first three are achieved by the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill and the fourth is achieved by the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill. The final three, with the exceptions of codes of practice for other platforms, do not require legislation at this stage.
Labor supports most of these measures in these bills, because they're our measures. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so it's really pleasing to see the government once again adopting Labor's policies. We led the way on broadcast licence fee relief, gambling advertising restrictions and funding to support the broadcasting of women's sports.
In March this year, Labor moved a second reading amendment here in the Senate which called on the government to work with broadcasters and sporting organisations on a plan to phase out the promotion of betting odds during live sports broadcasts. In a move that was the epitome of hypocrisy, the government voted against the motion and then, only a few weeks later, announced their own gambling advertising restrictions. The government's new gambling restrictions will prohibit all gambling promotions from five minutes before the scheduled start of play in all live broadcasts to five minutes after the conclusion of play or 8.30 pm, whichever is sooner. We have yet to see the impacts of these provisions, which still allow a fair amount of gambling advertising.
In relation to women's sports, Labor announced funding during the last election to support broadcasting of women's sports on the ABC and the importance of this commitment cannot be overstated. Currently, women's sport only comprises seven per cent of sports coverage on Australian television. And of course the situation hasn't been helped by the government's massive cuts to the ABC—cuts that they went ahead with in the previous term despite Mr Abbott explicitly ruling them out on the eve of the 2013 election. Expanding the audiences of women's sport is key to addressing the massive gender pay gap that exists in elite sports. While male players are earning six-figure salaries in sports such as soccer, cricket and Australian rules football, their female counterparts are struggling to earn even a living wage. And that's just not good enough.
I want to now comment on some of the other measures in this bill. It's widely accepted that the 75 per cent reach rule is well past its use-by date. Labor will support the repeal of this rule. We share industry's frustration at the government's delay on this reform. We support the new local programming requirements for regional commercial television in schedule 3 of the bill. The provisions are triggered when, as a result of a change in control, the licensee becomes part of a media group whose combined licence area population exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population. Labor supports these provisions. However, they actually do little to promote diversity.
Schedule 4 of the bill amends the anti-syphoning scheme by extending the automatic delisting period for listed events from 12 to 26 weeks. This schedule also repeals the multichannelling restrictions, enabling free-to-air broadcasters to premiere listed events on a digital multichannel. In a post-digital switchover environment, this rule is now redundant, and Labor supports the ability of Australians to enjoy coverage of premium sporting events on free-to-air television.
Schedule 5 of the bill abolishes broadcasting licence fees and datacasting changes. Currently, these fees and charges raise around $130 million per annum. However, the media market has changed significantly since broadcasting licence fees were first introduced. Labor, in government, commenced the process of licence fee relief, particularly in recognition of the impact of the global financial crisis on local content production, and in the context of the digital switchover. The government's argument that this will mean broadcasters are better able to compete with online competitors was actually put forward by Labor in 2016. The related tax bill that the government has introduced as part of its broadcasting reform package introduces a new spectrum tax. This is estimated to raise about $40 million a year. The radio frequency spectrum is a highly valuable and finite public resource, so it's fair that the Commonwealth gets a return on the use of this resource. Some broadcast licensees will be worse off under the new spectrum tax, hence the inclusion of a $23 million transitional support package and the establishment of an ACMA review of broadcasting pricing arrangements, to be completed by mid-2022.
We will support all but one of the reforms in the government's broadcasting reform package. However, we find it quite disappointing that after four years in office—in fact, I think they've just clicked over to beginning their fifth year in office—the government would present such a lazy, piecemeal approach to broadcasting reform. As we've said many times before—in this place, in the House and through the media—Labor does not support the government's proposal to repeal the two-out-of-three rule. The repeal of the two-out-of-three rule is a misguided obsession from this government. Should the government succeed in repealing the two-out-of-three rule, it would concentrate media ownership and it would undermine Australian democracy. One of the best explanations of the importance of media diversity to democracy was provided by the Australian Media and Communications Authority, ACMA, in their 2011 report Enduring concepts: communications and media in Australia. They said:
At the core of liberal democracy is the idea of ‘pluralism’—that is, more than one perspective has validity, and there is social and political value in people expressing, and engaging with, these perspectives. The rationale for intervention is that in the absence of intervention, media and communications markets (or other interests) may consolidate perspectives or favour certain opinions at the expense of others, and that a diversity of voices has social value.
You would think that the Liberals, of all the parties, would share this perspective. I've heard those on the other side speak in defence of free speech. A party that genuinely believes in liberalism would value a diversity of voices in the media.
Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, yet this government would seek to make this situation worse. The argument that appears to be advanced by the government in favour of this change is that, currently, there is a collapse in traditional forms of media—that's radio, television and newspapers. And it's true that the media landscape is changing as technology changes. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram and content-streaming services like Netflix are becoming part of the media landscape. But to suggest that a diversity of voices can be maintained in the media when one person exercises control over radio, television and newspaper in a broadcast area absolutely defies credibility.
Despite the changes in our media landscape, there is no denying that radio, television and print media remain dominant forms of reporting. For example, a 2016 study by the University of Canberra's News and Media Research Centre found that TV, print and radio are still the main sources of news for over half of Australians. This is a lot higher—more than 70 per cent—for people aged 65 and over, who make up a significant portion of the population. This figure does not account for news generated by these platforms but shared through other means such as social media. I know from my own use of social media that links to newspaper articles, in particular, feature prominently among the news reported on Facebook and Twitter. And the majority of the most popular news websites accessed by Australians—in fact, eight out of the top 10—are either directly or jointly owned by traditional media platforms. We should also recognise that many Australians, either by choice or due to poor service—of which there is quite a bit—are not active online and therefore continue to rely on traditional media platforms for their news.
This is the government's second attempt at repealing the two-out-of-three rule. Their first attempt was in a 2016 broadcasting reform bill, which was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Three eminent academics provided evidence to that inquiry, outlining concerns about the current concentration in Australia's media market, and their comments were quoted in Labor's dissenting report. Professor Michael Fraser, from the University of Technology, Sydney, said:
It is notorious, in terms of news and current affairs, that we, among the democracies, have the least diversity in our newspapers and have very little in television.
Professor Rodney Tiffin, from the University of Sydney, said:
Media concentration in Australia is amongst the highest in the world. Our daily press is the most concentrated in the world … Our pay TV industry is the most concentrated in the world.
And Professor Graeme Turner, from the University of Queensland, said:
[It] is important that we are alert to the likelihood of any relaxation of media ownership restrictions making what is already an undesirable situation any worse.
Australia's high media concentration was also noted in the Finkelstein inquiry, which observed that we are the only country in the world where the leading newspaper company accounts for more than half of daily circulation, and the top two companies have an 86 per cent share. Commercial Radio Australia, the peak body for commercial radio stations, found in a study of Australia's audio consumption that new digital platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music had failed to dent radio's dominance of the audio landscape. Broadcasters such as Channel 7 and Channel 9, and newspaper companies such as Fairfax and News Limited, already have extraordinary power, and that power could be further concentrated.
In my home state of Tasmania, I think it's fair to say that our newspapers are dominant enough that political careers are made, or broken, based on which candidates our newspapers choose to cover and in what light they choose to cover them. Unless you can get positive coverage in TheExaminer, in the north of the state, or the Mercury, in the south, it's very difficult to have any success in politics or any recognition of what you may have achieved. This gives them incredible power, which they can potentially wield to influence public policy in Tasmania.
I mentioned earlier traditional media's use of online platforms. The proliferation of new digital media platforms has not necessarily led to a proliferation of new independent sources of news. The government's own department of communications submitted to the inquiry into the 2016 broadcasting bill:
… the internet has, to date at least, tended to give existing players a vehicle to maintain or actually increase their influence …
We recognise that much of the competition faced by traditional media is from overseas digital content providers who are not subject to the same taxes and media regulation. This is why, as I said earlier, we support broadcasting licence fee relief and the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule. Removing the two-out-of-three rule will not effectively address these competitive pressures, but it will have a number of unintended consequences, not the least of which is the further concentration of an already heavily concentrated media market. Australia's democracy depends on the availability of a diversity of opinions and points of view to be heard. The state of Australia's media market makes it difficult enough already to have a genuine public debate, without media owners steering and influencing public opinion. The government's misguided proposal to remove the two-out-of-three rule will undoubtedly make this situation worse.
On the subject of maintaining a diversity of voices in broadcasting, I want to acknowledge the importance of having a strong independent national broadcaster. This role continues to be served by the ABC and SBS. Our public broadcasters are not the subject of this bill, but, as Senator Hanson thought it okay to bag the ABC, I thought I would say a few words in their defence. In talking about the role of broadcasting in Australia's democracy, their contribution must not be overlooked. Australia's investment in national broadcasting ensures that, while having a variety of voices in our media, we also have an independent voice in the media that is free from commercial influence and subject to a stringent code of practice. The ABC serves several other useful functions, including the opportunity for Australian content to be seen and heard and the provision of local news, public announcements and emergency broadcasting in remote and regional areas. SBS was established to ensure that Australia's multicultural diversity was promoted and celebrated.
These national broadcasting functions have been threatened by the government's aggressive budget cuts. It's utterly shameful the way in which this government has undermined our public broadcasters, and continues to undermine our public broadcasters. We all remember Mr Abbott's pronouncements on the eve of the 2013 election, which included the promise of no cuts to the ABC or SBS. But the 2014 budget included $254 million in cuts to the ABC, overseen by Mr Turnbull as then communications minister. It has led to the loss of hundreds of staff across the ABC, cuts to transcription services for the deaf and hearing impaired, an end to shortwave radio transmission in the Northern Territory, and programing cuts, such as changes to Catalyst and cuts to music programs on Radio National. In my home state of Tasmania it has led to the loss of the local edition of the current affairs program 7.30.
Since coming to government in 2013 the Liberals have cut the ABC's funding by $355 million over five years. To make up for their cuts to SBS the government tried to increase SBS's hourly cap on advertising. This would lead to SBS prioritising revenue at the expense of its charter obligations and would further undermine its unique role as Australia's ethnic broadcaster. I find it incredible that the Liberals' coalition partner, the Nationals—a party which purports to stand up for the bush—would not be standing up for the ABC when it provides such a valuable service to rural and regional Australia. But, like on so many issues facing rural and regional Australia, the Nationals have sold their soul and are willing to jump to the Liberals' tune.
As if the ABC isn't facing enough pressure, the government has made a grubby deal with One Nation to further undermine the ABC. Senator Burston has made it clear that the proposed amendment to the ABC Act requiring the ABC to be fair and balanced is absolutely aimed at giving equal weighting to groups like the antivaxxers, who promote outdated and dangerous ideas. When Senator Burston offers Fox News as an example of a broadcaster that is fair and balanced, we really have to be concerned about what this government's intentions are for the future of the ABC. Of course, the ABC should be independent and promote public debate, but the public interest is not served by giving quack science and conspiracy theories equal airtime to proper expert analysis and opinion. It's outrageous that this government would be willing to give more airtime to antivaxxers, climate change sceptics and Holocaust deniers on the ABC in return for support for these bills.
The government's agreement to a competitive neutrality inquiry into the ABC and SBS is also extremely concerning. It could diminish the role of the ABC and SBS to mere market-failure broadcasters. What could this inquiry possibly be aimed at achieving other than setting the stage for the end of public broadcasting in Australia? Now we know that Senator Hanson and One Nation want to see the end of the ABC. It begs the question: in addition to this grubby deal, is there a secret side deal for the government to cut funding to the ABC in the next budget? Australians love their ABC, and I don't think they'll take too kindly to the government's or One Nation's attempts to undermine their national public broadcaster.
Even if these bills pass, there are a number of issues in the broadcasting sector that remain unaddressed by this government, even after four years in office. The community broadcasting sector still has no certainty about funding for community digital radio. I've mentioned in this place many times how the Liberal coalition partners, the Nationals, have lost their soul, as they fail to stand up for rural and regional Australia. Given 66 per cent of community radio services are focused in rural and regional Australia, this just adds to the growing list of issues where The Nationals have failed to serve their core constituency. The government's reforms also do nothing to support the introduction of audio description for the blind and visually impaired. Over 350,000 Australians are missing out on this service despite it having been available for years in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and Japan. I understand the government have a working group on audio description which is due to report at the end of this year, but they're dragging their feet and it's just not good enough.
To conclude, I would like to thank my colleague in the House, Michelle Rowland, who has worked very hard on scrutinising this package as shadow minister for communications. Broadcasting reform is a wide ranging and complicated policy area. Ms Rowland has also been a strong advocate for broadcasting reform and holding the government to account for their years of inaction in this area and the piecemeal approach they are taking with this package.
I will acknowledge that the government's package, piecemeal as it may be, is a step in the right direction. It would be a great shame if they held this package hostage for the sake of insisting on their misguided pursuit of repealing the two-out-of-three rule. I have given a number of reasons that the two-out-of-three rule is bad for Australian democracy, and I urge the government to accept our amendments. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on, and support, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. In return for our support for this bill, One Nation negotiated with the government for the term 'fair and balanced' to be part of the ABC's charter, increase its commitment to regional areas and to reveal the salaries of its top broadcasters, amongst other things.
At present, the ABC currently spends just 17 per cent of its revenue for the benefit of people working outside the capital cities, where 35 per cent of the Australian population resides. Consistent with that imbalance, the ABC reflects the concerns and interests of people living in our capital cities at the expense of the population in regional, rural and remote Australia. We should seek to restore the balance at the ABC between the city and bush by requiring the ABC to direct 35 per cent of budget expenditure to places where 35 per cent of the population resides. Restoring the balance between the city and bush at the ABC is not just a matter of justice and equity but also of recognising the unique contribution of the bush to Australian culture and values. Why should the cities get the lion's share of ABC funding when so much of our history and cultural identity is represented by the bush?
It should also be said that the unique character of rural, remote and regional Australia owes much to the talented people who live in communities outside the major cities. The ABC would benefit from the creative input of those people, as would the audiences who support the ABC. It seems to me that the national broadcaster should defend our national values, and ABC management will be much better placed to achieve this objective if its programs reflect the values of a broad cross-section of the community and not just the hopes and aspirations of people who live in the capital cities.
Much of the material broadcast on the ABC is produced in rural, regional and remote parts of the rest of the world, especially in the United Kingdom, and it has always struck me as rather odd that our national broadcaster has no problem recognising the appeal of this material, except on its own doorstep. One reason the national broadcaster fails to reflect a broad cross-section of the community in its programing is that increasingly the ABC is dominated by city people, who, naturally enough, project city values.
I was hardly surprised to learn just a couple of weeks ago from Jennifer Oriel from The Australian that research at the Sunshine Coast university found that 41.2 per cent of ABC staff voted for the Greens. This figure may be representative of the Greens' voters in privileged parts of our capital cities, but the Greens' vote struggles to get to double figures in rural and regional Australia. This lack of diversity at the ABC is the reason that the bush is deprived of broadcasting funds.
If the ABC were a commercial broadcaster, there might be some small justification for the failure to apply funds proportionately between the bush and the capital cities. Commercial broadcasters need to make a profit, which is impossible in areas of low density population. For example, free-to-air television, news and current affairs budgets in the bush are just 10 per cent of capital city budgets. But the national broadcaster is supposed to serve the public interest, as articulated in the ABC Charter, not commercial interests. The ABC should broadcast programs that contribute to the national identity and reflect Australia's cultural diversity. I contend that directing just 17 per cent of revenue to rural, regional and remote areas, representing 35 per cent of our population, is contrary to the ABC Charter and against the public interest.
I wonder whether the ABC is ignoring the bush as part of a wider agenda to compete with commercial broadcasters. Just recently Darren Davidson reported in The Australian that the ABC outbid the Australian Associated Press for a lucrative contract to supply an outdoor advertising company with syndicated newsfeeds. In the same article, the journalist reports that other television broadcasters complained that the ABC, with its $1.04 billion in base funding, is outbidding the Channel 7, Channel 9 networks and Foxtel for programming that is more suited to pay-television services and commercial networks. If the ABC has so much money to spend, why not spend some of it in the bush?
The importance of a strong and independent public broadcaster cannot be overstated. People trust the ABC, especially in times of emergency—and I've currently got a fire emergency in the Hunter. We assume that what we see or hear on the public broadcaster has not been compromised by commercial interests. In the same vein, we expect to see or hear important news and to be entertained and educated without the frustration and interruption of commercial advertising. It is often said that the ABC is a public service we're entitled to access without direct cost. We value the fact that our ABC broadcasts programs that are not determined by advertisers looking for large audiences to sell their products and services to. ABC content is not subject to the dictates of commercial interests, and commercial interests should not be allowed to starve regional, rural and remote Australia of the funds required to serve the public interest, recognised in the ABC Charter.
While not part of this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to advise the government that One Nation is supportive of Blind Citizens Australia's position and its recommendations regarding audio description. Audio description is a service that provides verbal narration of visual elements that appear on screen during television programs, inserted during natural gaps in dialogue within a standard program. The service provides information about elements such as facial expressions, scenes, settings, actions, costumes and on-screen text, which is otherwise inaccessible to audience members who are blind or vision impaired. I've been advised by Blind Citizens Australia that audio description has been available on free-to-air television in all other English-speaking OECD countries for many years, while Australia continues to lag behind. Frustratingly, although iconic Australian programs such as Neighbours and Home and Away are currently audio described for overseas audiences, they are still not accessible to Australians who are blind or vision impaired. It is my understanding that Australians who are deaf or hearing impaired enjoy comparatively high levels of access, with the Broadcasting Services Act now requiring 100 per cent of content that is broadcast between 6 am and midnight to be captioned.
There are currently more than 350,000 Australians who are blind or vision impaired. According to Vision 2020 Australia, around 80 per cent of vision loss in Australia is caused by conditions that become more common as people age. The need for television services that can adequately respond to the needs of an ageing population will only become more pertinent in years to come, with one in every four Australians projected to be aged 65 or over by the year 2056.
One Nation believes there's plenty of fat in the budget of both the ABC and SBS to provide this service, starting at a bare minimum of 14 hours per week. I call on commercial broadcasters to consider offering this service, especially if this bill is passed. I understand that earlier this year the government announced the establishment of an audio-description working group to explore options to increase the availability of audio description in Australia. The working group will provide a report to government on its findings by the end of this year. I look forward to the release of the report at the government's earliest convenience.
I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. This bill is the Turnbull government's second attempt at media reform, yet it appears that they have learned absolutely nothing since the first attempt. The flawed Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 stalled in the Senate because of vehement opposition to the proposed repeal of the two-out-of-three rule—we can remember it because it wasn't that long ago—yet this new bill rehashes the same provision from the earlier flawed bill.
It is very well known that Labor supports a number of aspects of this particular piece of legislation. We will continue to do so as long as the provisions relating to the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule are omitted. Labor is ardently committed to the support of the Australian media industry, to the jobs that the Australian media industry produces and, of course, equally as important, to the content that the Australian media industry produces. Both the jobs and the content are important aspects of a thriving Australian media industry environment. But, unlike the Turnbull government, Labor is also committed to safeguarding the interests of the Australian public. Why? Because that's the central tenet of any democracy.
We acknowledge the competitive pressures that the media industry faces every day and that Australia does need a thriving and capable media industry. It's imperative that the sector remains viable and competitive in a modern media environment. It's for this reason that Labor will support measures in the bill that the Australian media industry needs most—indeed, the aspects of the bill that the Australian media industry has been calling for, for some time now—such as licence free relief, the repeal of the 75 per cent rule and the relaxation of the anti-syphoning scheme list. But Labor also acknowledges that Australians value media ownership diversity. They truly do. They understand the role that a government should assume in promoting diversity through competition. It's for that reason that Labor fundamentally opposes the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule, which is a direct attack on media diversity in this country.
It's becoming increasingly evident that our Minister for Communications has no vision for Australia's media sector. He has no ideas for how to adapt our media safeguards to the contemporary environment. He seems practically incapable of undertaking any type of genuine holistic reform. Instead, he prefers doing his business behind closed doors—something we've become very well aware of. Who are the victims of his doing this? The victims are the Australian public. The victims of these backroom dealings are our trusted public broadcasters. They are the victims here. But we don't hear the minister talking at all about them.
We know that the Turnbull government welcomed what it called 'constructive engagement' with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party over its deeply flawed media ownership laws. We know exactly what 'constructive engagement' means. It means the further undermining of our public broadcasters. Do not be fooled. When the Prime Minister says 'constructive engagement' with the crossbench party of Pauline Hanson's One Nation he is talking about undermining our public broadcasters. It means cutting funding to the ABC and SBS, despite the polls showing, year after year, that the ABC is Australia's most trusted broadcaster. Why? Because this is a government that has no commitment to our public broadcasters and, therefore, no commitment to the Australian people who put their trust in those broadcasters. If we take a short trip down memory lane, just four years ago—
Senator Singh, I am loath to interrupt, but, it being 12.45, we shall now proceed to senators' statements.
Australia is unquestionably in its first urban century, and our future will be defined by our cities. Like the rest of the world, Australian cities are not only the engines of our economies but also the source of innovation, new technology and, dare I say it, social progress. Cities, not countries, now compete for investment and attention. With over 100 cities in China having more than one million people, Australia's cities must act in a nimble, coordinated way to survive and prosper, leveraging off our competitive advantages and developing a strong brand to attract people, investment and visitors.
Putting our cities on a trajectory to long-term success requires building a dynamic economic base, one that doesn't rely upon single industries; economies that are able to grow and can adapt to changing global market conditions. This is why this government, the Turnbull government, appointed the first ever minister for cities, and why the Turnbull government recently released its Smart Cities Plan, the first comprehensive plan which places a renewed focus on our cities and enables our urban centres, whatever their size, to realise their full potential.
The coalition's Smart Cities policy starts with a commitment from all levels of government—the private sector and the community—to work together to deliver common goals, including reforms that make our cities easier to invest and do business in. It provides a pathway for all levels of government to capitalise on revolutionising our inner cities and take advantage of the unprecedented pace of technological progress that can make our cities more prosperous and stable. Key to this is the City Deals program, which is a partnership between the Australian government, a state or territory government and local government, which aims to make our cities better places to live and, critically, better places to do business. By bringing together all levels of government, the private sector and the community, City Deals provides a coordinated investment plan for our cities, all of our cities, including those in regional Australia.
The government has already signed deals for Townsville and Launceston, and is working on a city deal for Western Sydney. The Townsville city deal is a 15-year commitment between three levels of government which will deliver more than 16 individual commitments, including the North Queensland stadium, which will support over 750 design and construction jobs and Indigenous employment opportunities, and maximise local procurement. The deal will also establish the Townsville Development Corporation to develop urban renewal and drive further investment across the city, refine the business case and identify funding and financing options for a new entertainment centre and enhance Townsville as a major port city, working with the Port of Townsville to build trade and export growth.
The Launceston city deal will include the $260 million relocation and redevelopment of the University of Tasmania's main Launceston campus to Inveresk, which is the largest single infrastructure investment in Launceston's long history. The local community is expected to benefit from the increase in economic output to the tune of $362 million per annum over 10 years. During the construction phase, it is estimated that the direct and indirect economic impact will total $965 million. An impressive 2,760 new jobs are likely to be created as a result, with 430 of those new jobs being directly related to the construction industry. The potential for student participation is also significant. There is capacity by 2030 for 10,000 students to be engaged and, of those, 1,500 will be international students. The university campus will eventually be able to house 16,000 students, researchers and staff. Complementing the university campus redevelopment is a $19.4 million investment in the city heart project. This will enliven Launceston's historic CBD and create a competitive, vibrant and compelling city centre for locals and visitors.
Our economic success, our urban and national identity, our physical and social health, our environmental future and more, all depend on how well our cities perform. Ensuring that these investments and many other needed initiatives are focused smartly, within a better understanding of what cities truly need, requires not only strong leadership at a federal level but also strong leadership at a community level. People listening in to the broadcast might find it a bit peculiar that a West Australian Liberal senator is talking about Launceston or Queensland or Western Sydney. This brings me to my core point about why City Deals and Smart Cities are so important, not just to my home town of Perth but also to my home state of Western Australia.
Nowhere is this truer than in my home state of Western Australia, where the economy is transitioning from the mining and investment boom, which saw unprecedented growth and much-needed investment in rural and regional communities, to more high-tech and knowledge-based industries centred in urban environments. Like many cities, Perth is at a crossroads. After a historic boom, WA's capital city is under pressure. Despite a rush of development and major projects, there is now an overwhelming sense of a vacuum, with no clear vision or focus on how the city can or should move forward. Perth's inner-city population has surged in recent years. However, it is surging from a relatively low base. The area still has densities that are low on a national and international scale.
For those residents already living in central or inner-city Perth, some core essential facilities and services are still missing. On some measures, new residents in greenfield areas have better access to facilities and services than those living in inner-city Perth. New suburbs, for example, are provided with well-appointed parks and facilities, while city residents are not receiving the same investment in new or existing spaces. While Perth's inhabitants are sparsely populated compared to some in other regions across our country, they have traditionally been spread out over a larger area. Changing demographics and community attitudes, however, are increasing demand for high-density living around Perth's suburbs. Younger people, for instance, are looking for greater or more diverse housing choices. The biggest challenge Perth faces is finding the right balance between infill development and urban sprawl and the increasing cost of congestion. More than 30 per cent of residents in the Greater Perth area travel more than half an hour to or from work each day—the fourth-worst performance of Australia's 21 biggest cities. Some commuters spend 600 hours a year in the car—the same amount of time it would take to walk to Adelaide.
In July, I was pleased to host Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation Angus Taylor during his visit to Perth. It was during this visit that he announced that the Commonwealth was eager to progress the City Deal with WA as soon as possible, and offered access to billions of dollars in earmarked funding if the state government signed up to this important, historic agreement. A City Deal with Perth would be the fourth signed by the federal government and the first for a capital city. Funding for the new agreement will come from the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility, the $10 billion rail infrastructure fund and the $1.6 billion already allocated to WA rail and road projects. It will address the issue of traffic congestion by generating precincts around train stations. It will promote investment attraction and employment through reduced big regulation, investment in skills and the removal of barriers to employment, including a focus on youth and Indigenous employment. It will improve housing affordability through support for increased supply and housing diversity, including improvements to planning and zoning regulations and higher density developments in appropriate locations. It will improve environmental and liveability outcomes, including streamlined and coordinated biodiversity conservation, and support for clean air, green spaces, and vibrant arts and cultural experiences. It will improve coordination between governments to deliver regulatory reforms that better integrate infrastructure, land-use, housing and environmental planning decisions to facilitate government. But most importantly, a City Deal will ensure better urban outcomes for Perth residents.
I'm excited. I'm hopeful that a City Deals opportunity for Perth, Western Australia, will enliven community initiatives like the Future Bayswater project, leading those civil society groups in Perth's inner suburbs and outer suburbs to find local solutions to local problems. I have every confidence that the federal government's City Deals initiative, if landed on Perth, will provide a fantastic new life for that great city of Perth in Western Australia.
I rise today to tell the story of one individual, but it tells a much bigger story. I want to tell the story of Shane O'Neill, who worked for UGL and the ExxonMobil offshore plant in Victoria for 19 years. That is 19 years of working with this one company. But, after that period of time, earlier this year, under a new proposed agreement, a take-it-or-leave-it offer of a 30 per cent pay cut was put on the table. This is the same type of behaviour we saw from Carlton & United Breweries. This is the same type of behaviour we have seen time and time again from companies and larger corporations who treat long-term, loyal employees improperly, cycling them out of contracts, cycling them out of agreements and finding arrangements and loopholes that allow them to rip off workers.
I wanted to get to the bottom of Shane's story, so I reached out to the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. I note that they've been working with the Electrical Trades Union and also with the Australian Workers' Union, and I want to acknowledge my good friend there, Tamsyn Lloyd, who sent me information about just what is actually going on at this company. As a tiny bit of background for the chamber, the Longford gas plant was built in 1969. It is the onshore receiving point for oil and gas output from production platforms in Bass Strait. The Longford gas plant consists of three gas processing plants and one crude oil stabilisation plant. It was the primary provider of natural gas to Victoria and provided some supply to New South Wales. These are highly skilled workers with the difficult job of maintaining the gas industry. For example, they make sure the pipes on the ocean floor don't leak gas. It's skilled work. It's dangerous work.
I want to explain the relationship between ExxonMobil, which trades as Esso, and UGL. ExxonMobil doesn't directly employ the workers at Longford. Instead, it's foreign-owned contractor UGL employs the workforce. It now seems that UGL will further contract out employment. This long trail of contractors is becoming very common in the resources sector. Sadly, none of what has been happening on this plant is illegal, and I want to stress that. The problem is that this is permitted behaviour. It demonstrates the disastrous loopholes in our industrial relations laws.
I also want to touch on what all of this means for our tax laws. Some of the workers are onshore at the Longford plant and some of them are offshore workers in the Bass Strait. They're employed by UGL, as the direct contractor to Esso, which is the trading name for ExxonMobil. Recently, ExxonMobil retendered for the maintenance contract. The winning bid offered wages and conditions that were substantially less—one-third less—than the rates that had been offered at ExxonMobil for years. This contract cycling has become a common way for large multinationals in Australia to legally cut wages and conditions. As I mentioned earlier, this is the same situation that we saw at Carlton & United Breweries last year. ExxonMobil is allowing UGL to cut the wages and conditions of these Victorian workers by up to 30 per cent and introduce harsh antifamily rosters. UGL are using underhanded tactics and loopholes in our laws, including trying to force their 200 workers, like Shane O'Neill, onto an agreement approved by just a handful of unrelated workers in Western Australia. The companies are using some of the same tactics that we saw at Carlton United Breweries, but UGL's plan is to cut wages and conditions by shifting workers onto a subsidiary company which is called MTCT. This MTCT agreement, signed years ago by just five people on the other side of the country, would see these Victorian workers face 30 per cent pay cuts, allowances reduced, annual leave reduced, loadings significantly cut and a harsh anti-family shift roster that would see workers move from one week on and one week off to five weeks on and one week off.
I want to stress that: five weeks on and one week off. We're talking about a plan where many of these workers spend long periods offshore. Can you imagine what that does to families, what that does to people's lives and what that does to whole communities? It is tough enough. As senators, we have a very small taste of fly-in fly-out work, but in a very manageable way. I'm fortunate, as a New South Wales senator; it's much easier than it is for senators across the country—and I note that Western Australian and Tasmanian senators have it a lot tougher. Imagine five weeks on with one week off. Imagine the consequences of that for a family, what that does to a family. We have these huge debates in this place about the importance of being there for children—of course it's important—and the importance of being role models. It is difficult to do that, if you're not there for five weeks at a time.
This is the bit that really grates on me: the argument broadly presented by ExxonMobil and their company Esso is that they have to do this because of their commercial situation in Australia. That is the bit that really frustrates me with this—and I note that Senator Ketter is in the chamber today. We have been looking at how these companies, oil and gas companies in particular, structure their affairs, behave and use the loopholes that exist in our system, be it marketing hubs, thin capitalisation, cost shifting or the kinds of arrangements that we saw time and time again from Chevron, where they, effectively, are loaning themselves their own money at rates designed—and, again, the courts have caught them out for this—to impact their profitability for the sole purpose of tax arrangements—
They argue that the rights and conditions of these workers need to be stripped because of commercial pressures—then there is the work that this Senate, and, in particular, the Senate Economics References Committee, chaired by Senator Ketter, have done in highlighting how these things are a lie, how these claims are a lie, how these claims are a rort, how these workers are being exploited and taken advantage of, how they're being ripped off, and how they've had their situations, their lives and their stories shattered—at the same time as techniques and tactics are being used to present a false picture of an economic position simply for tax advantage. Now these tax minimisation structures and tactics look like they're being extended to make the case for ripping off and hurting workers.
I note there was a very strong public campaign against Carlton United Breweries when they went down this path. I note that it's not as cool or as hip when we talk about offshore gas, and a company like ExxonMobil obviously isn't as cool and hip as a company like Carlton United Breweries, where there was a huge public backlash and people were boycotting the beer. I note it's a bit more—pardon the language—sexy with beer than when we're talking about oil and gas, but it's as important because of what it symbolises. You're looking at ExxonMobil, which had something in the vicinity of up to $15 billion of revenue in the past few years, paying nothing in tax. We've had Senate inquiries looking at why this is the case. We've looked at tax minimisation and we've looked at the schemes and tactics that they've used. That has been a separate debate. To then use those same tactics and those same arguments to rip off your own workers is unacceptable. This Senate, this parliament and this chamber have a responsibility to do whatever we can to bring ExxonMobil to account and protect the rights and conditions of these workers. I certainly intend to be using this chamber and the Senate to do that.
Australia has long recognised the importance of universal access to health care and education. It doesn't matter whether you're struggling to make ends meet or you're relatively well-off. We know that in Australia everyone can see a doctor when they're sick and every child can receive an education at a public school, yet in this country not everyone has the right to have a roof over their head come night time. Can you imagine people visiting the emergency department being asked for a credit card before lifesaving treatment? Can you imagine children being turned away from classrooms if their parents can't pay? There would be outrage—we know that. People would not accept it. Yet this sort of thing happens every day with housing because housing is now a commodity. What that means is that, if you can't pay your rent or your mortgage, you're on a slippery slope that could land you on the streets. We need to change the way we think about housing and reclaim it as a human right.
According to Launch Housing, a lack of affordable housing is the No. 1 cause of homelessness, closely followed by domestic violence. In the context of the marriage equality debate, the Australian Queer Students Network tells us that young LGBTIQ people who have been kicked out of home for being themselves have resorted to sleeping on the streets or couch surfing and even sleeping in classrooms or on the campus. They have no idea who to turn to or who will accept them. According to the Human Rights Commission, potentially one in four young people experiencing homelessness in New South Wales identifies as gay or lesbian. Without adequate funding for research on LGBTIQ youth homelessness in Australia, we have no national data to confirm what experience tells us is happening in large numbers.
It's not enough for governments to shirk from their duty to help these people and shift the burden onto the private sector. We need to recognise that housing is a human right. Everyone has a right to a home. Communities around the world are fighting back against the extreme marketisation of housing, and there are many lessons we can learn. Article 47 of the Spanish constitution states that all people 'have the right to enjoy decent and adequate housing'. The Catalan government have put this into practice by introducing laws which prevent evictions when the eviction will result in the occupants becoming homeless. The Catalan government are also empowered to expropriate housing under certain conditions. If properties are vacant due to their state of repair, the government will restore the property and lease it out as public housing. If vacant dwellings are owned by financial institutions where households are at risk of exclusion, the government will temporarily take them over to put them to use.
In Finland, they've discovered that the problem of homelessness is in some ways not that complex. They're simply providing housing to people who need it, unconditionally and with the additional support people need to maintain their housing. It's called 'Housing First'. This approach has reduced the number of crisis beds to fewer than 60 and has significantly reduced the number of people who are homeless. There is an economic benefit. It costs less to simply provide homes for people than to shunt them between crisis beds and waiting lists.
Turning to Britain, the recent election saw progressive parties make big moves towards public and community housing which serves the interests of people, not profits. The Labour Party pledged to build half a million public homes run by councils. For private renters, they promised to push back on the domination of the market by protecting renters from unreasonable price increases. The Greens promised half a million public homes and they promised that those homes would be zero-carbon dwellings. The Greens in Britain are leading the way. Public housing is good for communities and good for the environment, and they have the policies to match.
Returning to Australia, I warmly congratulate the Queensland Greens. They are giving outstanding leadership on the housing issue, that all parties should take note of. They've just launched a proposal for what they're calling 'the Medicare of the 21st century', a huge public housing program that is open to everyone—that's right, with their new Queensland housing trust, there will be no means testing and no income limits. As is the case with public health and education, everyone will be eligible. Surely that should be what we're aiming for. Australia recognises that housing is a human right. That's what we signed up to. We need to get housing on the same level as education and health.
The Queensland Greens plan to build one million homes by 2050, and half of the allocation each year would be allocated to eliminating the current social housing waiting list. You'd have to say it's a crime that 29,000 people in Queensland are waiting for decent housing. The Greens plan is the way to deal with this inequality. Importantly, rent for households would be calculated at either 25 per cent of their income, or market rent, whichever is cheaper. Again, this is affordable. We can achieve this. There are practical ways to do it, and it can be delivered to the community and would immediately reduce homelessness numbers. If people took up the option that the Greens are proposing, they would have a lifetime indefinite tenancy. The Queensland housing trust, proposed by the Greens, would have a mandate to ensure that new dwellings are state-of-the-art when it comes to design and environmental sustainability. This program would also investigate ways to democratise housing, such as bringing forward cooperatives and trusts, and management models that would give people more rights and control over their homes and communities because they would have a real say. Surely that is where we should be expanding our democratic practices.
It's not enough to provide bandaid solutions that don't address the real causes of homelessness and don't recognise that housing should be a right, not a privilege. The private housing market must be tamed with a bigger, more vibrant, public and community housing sector. I particularly emphasise that we need to reclaim the words 'public housing'. Public housing once had dignity, but it's been so relegated by successive state governments that it has been damaged. Public housing is an essential part of how housing should be run in this country. We can build a society that provides homes for all, regardless of people's bank balances. We can build a society in which homes are built to serve the needs of people and communities, rather than big banks, property developers and land speculators. Our priority has to be housing for people, not for profit.
Last week, we learnt that Australia has posted 104 successive quarters of economic growth. This should be a cause for celebration for our nation. It is a world record, after all, and we've overtaken the Netherlands in this regard. But if you look at who is benefiting from this economic growth, unfortunately the story is not quite so rosy. The reality is that this growth is underpinned by record corporate profits, not by a real rise in wage growth. In fact, wages growth is at record lows. In addition to this, household debt is at record highs, union membership is dwindling, and the scope of enterprise bargaining agreements are being dramatically reduced. People are losing their right to a fair day's pay.
The National Accounts for June have shown that economic growth is below two per cent, putting Australia's annual growth performance below that of Canada, the USA, New Zealand and the OECD. We also saw that average wages fell by 0.1 per cent, meaning living standards are continuing to slip. But at the same time, we see statements by the Reserve Bank governor, Dr Philip Lowe, that the laws of supply and demand still work and will lead to wages growth, and I agree. But that's not the full story. Bargaining power matters.
Dr Lowe also made statements in June saying that workers should not fear robots or foreigners. He downplayed fears of a lack of full-time jobs and said that the debate between full-time work and part-time work was a bit old-fashioned. He argued that, if people valued job security and took their case to their bosses, wage rises would follow.
The Reserve Bank Governor is not the only person commenting on low wages growth. The Treasurer in March said:
The biggest challenge we have is to ensure what Australians are earning every week is increasing. Our wage price index has been flat for some period of time now, and increasing what Australians earn, whether it's wage earners or small businesses, is what I think is the big challenge now.
So, after years of concerns about wage growth, begrudgingly the Treasurer has finally accepted the argument that Labor has been making for a very long time—that low wage growth is the biggest risk that threatens economic growth. But the government didn't take the action that it should have in response and follow Labor's lead and reverse the penalty rates cut—a wage cut at a time when living standards are falling. The Turnbull government is also committed to the company tax cuts and an increase in the Medicare levy for low- and middle-income earners, while removing the high-income budget repair levy.
While the Treasurer laments low wage growth, he doesn't have the policies to remedy the problem. They are all the wrong budget priorities. When it comes to low wage growth, the issues do run into the industrial bargaining space. A growing economy doesn't automatically mean that everyone enjoys the benefits, as I said previously. Bargaining power matters. When it comes to industrial relations and bargaining, I pay tribute to my Senate colleague Senator Gavin Marshall for his work in leading the Senate Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into corporate avoidance of the Fair Work Act. The report makes it clear that workers face problems when it comes to wage rises. The report found:
… a concerning trend of workers being unable to hold onto existing conditions under the current industrial system, let alone being in a position to seek higher wages in their own interests or that of the national economy.
I think this goes directly to the issue that Dr Lowe has highlighted—that the industrial relations system is getting in the way of that.
As found in this inquiry, the true problems faced by many Australian workers are multifaceted: casualisation, sham contracting, labour hire, noncompliance with Australia's industrial relations laws, new levels of union demonisation, falling wages, cuts to penalty rates and the gig economy. I can't go through all the findings and recommendations in this education and employment report, but I will mention a few to show the problems Australian workers are facing when it comes to wage rises. The first finding in the report is about the bargaining process. The committee report states:
It is the committee's view that collective bargaining should be open to workers and corporations at the level which allows the workers to negotiate directly with the point of economic power in the same way that Exxon "bargained" with contractors, playing them off against each other, workers and their representatives should be able to bargain in a real sense with the purchaser of their labour. In commerce a range of labour supply relationships exist beyond traditional direct employment. Outsourcing with competitive contracting gives rise to serious and potentially negative consequences for workers' wages and conditions and the FWA should be amended to expand the scope of collective bargaining coverage and corporate responsibility to workers beyond direct employees.
I turn to the recommendations. There was a recommendation to amend the act to prevent the commission from terminating an agreement, which imposes an unnatural end to the bargaining process. There were recommendations going to labour hire companies being required to become licensed and better regulated. Labour hire should be used appropriately to help top up workforce capacity where there are surges. It should not be used to casualise and drive down the wages of a workforce. Other recommendations went to allowing unions greater access to worksites to better monitor any deviations from lawful practices.
There also needs to be bigger penalties for wage theft, including the superannuation guarantee. I chaired the economics references inquiry into the superannuation guarantee and was deeply troubled by the ease with which underpayment can occur. People are entitled to the wages that they worked for. There should be no doubt that people are paid appropriately. This should include a reverse onus of proof on employers to prove that they've paid their staff correctly.
There are further findings in the areas of improving the information given to employees before taking on a new job and to display infringement notices publicly where businesses have been underpaying staff more than once. Migrant workers were also another well-known vulnerable group, and the report quite correctly made recommendations to address the exploitation going on in this area.
Another area I want to go into is sham contracting, where people are being effectively forced to take out ABNs as a way of securing work without the proper protections, rates of pay, superannuation, leave, redundancy, et cetera that they would otherwise be entitled to. Sham contracting should be unacceptable in today's world. The final issue to mention is the gig economy, and the need to make sure that legislation is updated to reflect these new developments, to ensure that workers in this industry have the proper pay, conditions and protections.
It's deeply concerning that the Fair Work Act is letting Australians down in so many areas. After participating in this inquiry, it's easy to see why economic growth isn't translating into wage growth. The transmission system—the enterprise bargaining system—is broken, and needs to be fixed. As Senator Marshall has stated, this report probably won't completely repair the system. A future Labor government has to have a much closer look at the act.
I'm heartened by recent announcements that the rest of the Labor leadership understands this problem. For instance, Labor is concerned there's been a sharp increase in the number of enterprise agreements that have been terminated over the past two years, with workers being thrown back onto awards. We see reductions in their wages, conditions and bargaining power. That's why it's been recently announced that, if elected, Labor will change the law. It will limit capacity to terminate agreements in order to address the imbalance in bargaining power between workers, their unions and employers. The workplace relations laws must encourage bargaining on a level playing field in order to ensure benefits to workers and employers.
In summary, we have our economic leaders—people like Reserve Bank Governor Mr Lowe and the Treasurer—highlighting the risk of low-wage growth and what it might mean to our economy and our society, but it can't be assumed that economic growth will automatically translate to wage growth. Workers need decent bargaining power and a fair framework to work within. The transmission system, as I mentioned, which delivers a fair share of the fruits of economic growth, is currently broken. As outlined in the recent Senate report and the policies that Labor has announced, there is a need to fix this system so that proper wage growth can be restored, and we see the inclusive prosperity that Labor has always championed. I'll finish with another quote from the report that clearly summarises the need for change and Labor's commitment to a fair economy for all.
It's an inescapable fact that the world the FWA was designed to implement is rapidly changing. Policymakers have not kept pace with this change. Noting the need for considerable improvements to our industrial system, the committee urges policymakers to bear in mind that labour, economic growth and national prosperity have one goal: ensuring a decent standard of living for all Australians.
As a proud senator for Western Australia and having worked for many Australian and international democratic institutions over the course of my career, I've often had cause to reflect on the nature and the health of our democracy, and never more so than now in my role as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and particularly at a time when Australian confidence in all of us is in decline. Working overseas with many democratic institutions, with candidates and political parties in new democracies and troubled democracies, has helped me see our own democracy through very different and new eyes—and this was a significant motivation for me to seek election in this place as a senator for Western Australia.
Over the course of my career, and particularly over the last three years here in the Senate, I have come to believe that our democracy itself is in trouble, and my time here, as I said, is only heightening that concern. This is why I understand how important my role as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters actually is, although I understand that chairing any committee in this place is not a solo endeavour for any single MP, member or senator. I also believe that all Australians have a role to play in the health of our democracy, just as every single one of us in this place does.
But first to the nature of democracy itself because, to engage in these discussions, we have to have some understanding of what our democracy is and then we can look at what we can do to protect it. If you look through any dictionary or any reference on the internet, you will very quickly see that 'democracy' defies a single definition. I'll start with one saying about democracy that all of us in this place are familiar with—that is, Winston Churchill's observation in 1947 that 'democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.' Too often that quote is used by people to explain away democracy's shortcomings. But too few of us have stopped to really think about the implications buried within Winston Churchill's comments.
I've come to see democracy as a volatile mix of at least five seemingly incompatible forces: the first is hope, external and aspirational hope—hope for a better life for one's children, hope your voice will be heard, hope that those elected to represent you will act with your best interests at heart; the second is the ideological battle between those who fight for individual freedoms and those who fight for collective rights; the third is competing interests themselves—the competing cultures and competing religious beliefs of the majority versus the minorities within any community; the fourth is the power struggles between those who have the power and those who seek it; and the fifth is the requirement for the economy to prosper, and security—two fundamental preconditions for a stable democracy in any country.
One of the fundamental issues that JSCEM, and I believe all of us in this place, are focused on is: how do we maintain the health of our democracy itself? One of the most critical factors is that all Australians, when exercising their rights as citizens, must have confidence in the integrity of the democratic institutions that maintain our electoral systems. While voters might not like the result that the election delivers, they absolutely have to have confidence that it accurately reflects the votes cast and that the election has been conducted free of corrupting influences and also foreign influences. I also believe that we need to maintain a multipartisan agreement, which looks beyond the politics of the day, to ensure that we maintain the integrity and transparency of our electoral processes, again to maintain or regain voter confidence in the very process itself.
Another consideration for the committee, and for all of us, is the fact that disruptive technologies are resulting in very radical transformations to all aspects of our lives, including how we vote. The Electoral Act itself was enacted in 1918, in the lifetime of my grandfather, a World War II veteran. His life's times and expectations were very different from the world I grew up in and when the last significant amendments were made to the act in 1984. It was still an analog world. We couldn't even have imagined smartphones, internet, wi-fi and the confirmation bias that has resulted from social media.
It is also very clear that over the course of the last couple of decades public confidence in our own democracy, and confidence in ourselves as politicians to be able to accurately reflect the public's desires and needs, is declining. Today, poll after poll demonstrates that Australians are increasingly disengaged from our political process and from us as their elected representatives. The Lowy Institute's tracking polls on Australians' views of democracy over the last five years demonstrate that this is actually increasing. The most recent poll found that just 52 per cent of Australians aged 18 to 29 agree that democracy is the most desirable form of government. When we stop and think about it, the implications of that are that the next generation of voters could take or leave democracy. If that does not worry every single person in this chamber and in the broader community then I don't know what would. That figure compares to an equally dismal 60 per cent for the entire population. What that means is that just half of 18- to 30-year-olds value what many in the world still fight and die for.
This is not just a trend in Australia; it is a trend consistent with what we're seeing right throughout Western democracies. The lack of political engagement in our society is a clear message to all of us that the health of democracies—in this case, our own democracy—can never be taken for granted. In our system of responsible government, there is an expectation in the community that once someone has—often reluctantly—gone to vote on election day, their job is done, and they have effectively outsourced or handed over responsibility to all of us in this place and in the other place to make all of the decisions on their behalf. But the fact is they still, for the health of our democracy, have a responsibility to engage in the processes: debating, discussing and making their voices heard to all of us in here so that we don't hear just the squeaky voices of the minority. I believe that for our democracy to continue to function effectively, we have to find a way to re-engage Australians in the big discussions and debates in our community. If they don't, under our system of responsible government, how can we as legislators know what the majority of voters nationally and in our individual constituencies actually want?
At the same time, one of the things the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is now looking at is that our democratic systems have to be accessible to all the citizens they serve, which means that we must also adapt to changing ideas of politics and political engagement, and make better use of technology. The committee is currently examining how we can do this with donations, and I'm very hopeful that we can achieve a multipartisan consensus for change. Clearly, it's not only in the best interests of our democracy to do so; I would say it is in the self-interest of everybody in this chamber to improve the public perception of and appreciation for what their elected representatives actually do.
There is some light at the end of the tunnel, I believe. The public debate surrounding the postal survey on marriage equality shows that younger Australians—while they may be disengaged from political processes and may have very scant regard for democracy—are not disengaged from political issues. According to the Australian Electoral Commission, an extra 90,000 Australians have added their names to the electoral roll since the announcement of the postal survey, and the AEC has received an unprecedented 800,000 requests either to join the electoral roll or to amend or update details. Regardless of what their opinion on the issue is, Australians, particularly young Australians, clearly want to have a say and have a voice, and I would say hallelujah for that.
I am very optimistic about our nation's future, but I know how we practise democracy needs to evolve, and it won't just happen. JSCEM is reviewing this on behalf of both chambers and finding a way forward for the process and for regaining people's trust in the process. What I would say—and perhaps it is unexpected of me—is: let's finds a way of keeping younger Australians engaged after this postal survey, so they can keep having their say and so we can engage them, possibly for the first time, in our electoral processes.
Following the overthrow of King James II in 1688, the English parliament passed a bill that established the framework of our modern system of government. The Bill of Rights of 1689, influenced by the ideas of philosopher John Locke, subsequently inspired the famous United States Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. The English Bill of Rights defined the limited powers of a constitutional monarch, set out the rights of individuals, established the right to bear arms, specified the requirement for regular free elections, and proclaimed the absolute freedom of speech in parliament. This latter, known as parliamentary privilege, was recognised at the time as a particularly important right. Former kings, in an effort to silence dissent against their increasingly autocratic rule, had used the courts to gag their opponents in parliament. I'm sure phrases such as 'maintaining the honour of the parliament', 'the need to ensure responsible debate', and 'the importance of values of respect and inclusion' would have been well to the fore in the king's arguments to limit parliament's ability to speak freely.
Prior to the English Civil War, parliamentarians who had the temerity to criticise the king or his views on a range of subjects could find themselves seized and hauled before the courts. The most notorious was the Court of Star Chamber. Here, disrespectful speech could cause you to face severe penalties, including the amputation of hands, noses, ears or tongues. Respect and royal inclusion were considered so important that the normal rules of evidence did not apply, so as to ensure that justice was not hampered by pesky concepts such as the burden of proof or habeas corpus. In the courts of Star Chamber, you were guilty until proven innocent, which proved to be a very convenient way of silencing opinions that dissented from the then politically correct views of the king and his party.
Given this history, it was therefore with great concern that I viewed two notices of motion by the Leader of the Greens last week. In notice of motion 447, Senator Di Natale sought to impose a code for respecting cultural diversity, which would curtail the free speech of senators, so as to uphold the principles of respect, tolerance, diversity and inclusion. In notice of motion 448, Senator Di Natale went even further, explicitly seeking to limit parliamentary free speech to prevent adverse reflections on an individual on the basis of colour, national or ethnic origin, culture or religious belief. Free speech was implicitly considered to be less important than fair speech, since, apparently to the Greens, their values were so irrefutably correct as to transcend any other concerns. In short, the end justified the means. I am quite certain that this is exactly what King Charles I thought.
Throughout history, there have been those who, judging that a particular viewpoint is worthy or even moral, have sought to impose it upon others—sincere, intelligent, well-intentioned people who have thought that the fair course, the moral course, the compassionate course, justified any necessary means to achieve them. Such people ask: 'Why would you allow hateful, unfair or bigoted speech anywhere? Surely the world would be fairer and more compassionate if we prevent people expressing a contrary view.' Unfortunately, this is a fallacy of truly tragic proportions. The measure of free speech is not the ability of people to say the respectful things that those in power agree with. The measure of free speech is the ability of people to say disrespectful things, outrageous things, even hurtful things.
King Charles I was not an evil man. I think the weight of evidence is that he tried very hard to be a good king and to govern in the best interests of his subjects. I am quite convinced that he and the then Archbishop of Canterbury, who presided in the Court of Star Chamber, thought that their efforts to silence dissent were not simply to strengthen their autocratic rule but to make England a fairer and more respectful place. But, sadly, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It took two revolutions, a civil war and the execution of the well-intentioned king and his archbishop to finally guarantee freedom of speech in the parliament. It is a hard-won right that we limit at our peril.
The sad truth is that well-intentioned but disastrously misguided political leaders have already established bodies to provide preliminary judgements and cast shame on our speech, such as the Human Rights Commission. As a result, the ability of the ordinary man in the street to say what he thinks without self-censorship or a nervous glance over his shoulder is a distant memory. The last place in the country in which men and women can say what they think without fear of the consequences is this place—the parliament. Throughout history, for every would-be tyrant who deliberately sought to deny our freedom, there have been thousands upon thousands of moral, well-intentioned people who imagined that society could be perfected by denying those principles upon which liberty relies. It is all the worse that they are decent and sincere.
I say: let us defend the precious rights of this place—our parliamentary privilege—with every resource at our disposal. Once we let the well-intentioned enemies of liberty erode it away in any way, we will only win it back with another revolution. George Orwell summed it up succinctly when he said that the means could never justify the end, because it is the means that determines the end. Society is not what we intend it to be; it is what we do.
I had intended to speak on other subject matter today, but we're seeing some evolving responses from within the beef supply sector in response to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee which was tabled yesterday in this place on behalf of Senator Sterle. I want to once more pay credit to Senator Sterle—he happens to be in the chamber—for having chaired a very difficult, long-ranging inquiry into the beef supply chain from a set of references that this Senate provided to him 18 months ago. It was a long, arduous, and very, very thorough Senate inquiry into the beef supply chain. The report is well supported by our side of politics. In fact, there was no dissenting report—in effect, one could say that this is bipartisan, or tripartisan, or—I'm not sure what the term is once you get past three—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Quart-partisan? Whatever it is, it has the support of all of the elements of this Senate, and there have been some interesting responses. In the limited time I have, I will concentrate on two of them.
The most remarkable is the response today from the chief executive officer of ALPA, the agents' peak body here in Australia. ALPA was the subject of quite pointed efforts of the committee because of serious, longstanding allegations of corruption and collusion in the marketplace; particularly in the saleyards around this nation, where tens of millions of head of cattle are transacted every couple of years. Today, Mr Madigan has come out and criticised the committee, saying that he's somewhat bemused and frustrated because the committee has made recommendations that ALPA should review and reform the practices around saleyards. We have found—and clear evidence was presented—that producers, and particularly smaller producers, were at a complete disadvantage in saleyards because of collusive and, I would say, corrupt behaviour over a long period of time.
The genesis of this was what we call the Barnawartha event, where nine of these agents, represented by Mr Madigan, boycotted the Barnawartha saleyards—it's called the 'Barnawartha Boycott'. There were thousands of head of cattle there, waiting to go to market, and the nine agents never turned up. The ACCC got involved and conducted an investigation. What were the reasons given by the nine agents? They certainly denied any collusion. They certainly denied any agreement. No. 1 said: 'The dog got my lunch. The dog took my lunch and I couldn't go all that way without something to eat.' Another one had a flat tyre, and the third one said the wipers didn't work on their car—and on and on it went. The ACCC reported to us in evidence that there'd been an increase in traffic in communication between these agents, some of whom had never spoken to each other before. So for the nine of them and—I say to you, Mr Madigan, straight down the barrel of the camera—for you to deny that there was collusion and difficulties in the saleyards of this nation is a very rich statement! In fact, in his evidence Mr Madigan had indicated that he himself had concerns about this in the saleyards. I'll use his words:
In my experience I have seen buyers talk to one another—just have a little whisper. I have not heard what they have said. I have no proof of it, but I have seen it. They will go up and talk to one another. One will stop bidding and then walk away, and then they will buy the next pen. I have seen that, yes.
That was his evidence, verbatim. As recently as 28 August Mr Madigan has said, 'At no stage did I say that'—that since the seventies he had witnessed collusive behaviour at livestock sales. The inconvenient fact for you, Mr Madigan, is that it was recorded on the Hansard. The tapes are here. If your memory is failing you, you should make a visit down here and we'll make arrangements for you to listen to your own voice.
It suits the agents to have no reform. It suits the agents not to have Senate inquiries or anyone else in authority looking at the behaviour in the saleyards. We opened the inquiry with a leading processor in the industry. Senator Sterle will remember this—it was a magic piece of evidence. Forty years, he said, he had been in the beef industry, and not once had he ever heard, not even in a conversation down at the pub, that there was collusion in the saleyards in this nation.
I say to Mr Madigan and to others in the industry: the more you tell us there's not a problem—because your credibility is in question—the more inclined we are to look more thoroughly again and again until your workplace, your marketplace, is reformed so that small producers around this country are not subject to collusive behaviour. If he thinks that we in this place are going to roll up into a ball and forget about the recommendations that we have just put through to the minister, then he has another think coming.
Then there is the Cattle Council of Australia. Deary me! I have no friends left in the beef sector, and, I suspect, neither do you, Senator Sterle, after our efforts over the last 18 months, but the Cattle Council represent literally nobody. There are 60,000 producers in this nation, and there is evidence that they quite literally represent nobody. There are eight stakeholder groups who wanted to come together and create what I've called a new cattle house. We have been putting pressure on them and engaging with them to consider that, because it was our intention that industry should sort its own problems out. The most brutal and inelegant way to resolve any problems in any sector is to have a Senate inquiry make recommendations to resolve them.
They have come out today. For the last year—they blew the candle out on the cake recently—they have been working in what's called a transition committee. A very prominent cattleman and administrator in this country, Mr Troy Setter, has headed that up. We have in recent months been hearing snippets of information, anecdotal, some of it coming from members of that transition committee, to say that the Cattle Council really don't have their heart in it. They want to remain as the Cattle Council. They don't want to commit to the establishment of a much more transparent, skills-based board structure that will give these 50,000 or 60,000 producers around the country a voice. The Cattle Council have come out today—they're finally out; the closet doors have swung open—and said that, actually, closing down the Cattle Council of Australia and creating a new entity would require a lot of work and time. I don't have time in this contribution to articulate all the points that they have come out with in the media today. I know I'm going to be a few Christmas cards short this year, but here's my message to the Cattle Council: this is the second time that recommendations have been made to my own government to strengthen the peak body, again as a result of the work of Senator Sterle and this Senate committee. The first ones have not been enacted. We will not rest now. We will persist until you restructure, until you properly operate in a transparent way that proves to your government and proves to your industry that you do represent the tens of thousands of small producers around this country who are getting it in the neck every time big processors or market conditions put them in a vulnerable place.
There's been market failure around beef now for 30 years, and it has to come to end. The power inequities that exist have to be addressed. The recommendations of the Sterle report were 100 per cent supported by us all—not one alteration to the report, not one dissenting report and not one qualifying addition to the report made. I say to my own government and to the industry: 'Listen up; you need to take these recommendations seriously.' We need to put our shoulders to the wheel and we need to get this back to being a fair, transparent and equitable market environment for the many tens of thousands of Australians who make a big contribution to our nation's wealth. (Time expired)
I concur with Senator O'Sullivan's comments. I add that whatever this new cattle house is, unlike the system that they have been in, it is the committee's absolute determination to see a democratically elected council, or whatever it may be, representing all facets of the industry.
I want to talk about the decimation of Australia's apprenticeships system. These are not only my words but also the words of many, many concerned people. To you, Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter, I could come out and start swinging, screaming and carrying on, because one thing people can check with me—and I've never taken a backwards steps—is my desire and passion to see Australian kids getting Australian apprenticeships, Australian traineeships and Australian jobs. I make not one apology for my determination to see this through.
When I was a young fellow growing up in Perth's eastern suburbs, in Langford, there was always the view that you'd probably follow in your father's footsteps—and, thankfully, I did. We're three generations of truckies, and we're proud of that. We were all given a golden opportunity. My old man—I'll say my dad—came out as a refugee from war-torn Europe. He couldn't even speak the language, but he could raise a family and work damn hard, and he had brilliant principles. In fact, he still has those brilliant principles. I sat in your chair yesterday, Mr Acting Deputy President, and listened to contributions from senators down that end of the table. It struck me that everyone wants to talk about kids going through school and high school, and then they always talk about university. I am someone who didn't. I tell a lie; I am an alumni from Murdoch University in Western Australia. I did two weeks there as a young offsider with Ansett Wridgways moving in the new veterinary clinic. So that's my university degree, or my university time. But all Aussie kids want to go to university.
I want to put a plea across the chamber to those on the other side, the government side. I'm not going to whack you because, like me, you're all parents—or most of you are parents—you're brothers, you're sisters, you're daughters or you're sons. You've all probably come through the same channel—working families—though some may have had a different upbringing. What is wrong with this nation? We're falling apart. We are now in a situation where Australian apprenticeships are disappearing. They're being decimated. We've seen free trade agreements that see so much work going offshore. Before anyone starts attacking me on free trade agreements, I've no problem with a correct free trade agreement, but I'm yet to see the Australian jobs, Australian traineeships and Australian apprenticeships that come with them.
We all sit here and pray that our kids are going to be left with the best, but then we start privatising previous government institutions. I'll talk about the great state of Western Australia. The Court Liberal government privatised the MTT, the Metropolitan Transport Trust, the Midland Railway Workshops and all these massive enterprises that not only delivered essential services for Western Australia—when they were government-owned—but also actually put kids through apprenticeships. Then we saw the boom of the mining industry. The mining industry's come a long way from what it was, I will admit. They're now starting to do apprenticeships but they weren't investing in apprenticeships. When I came off the road as a worn-out 31-year-old ex-road train operator who'd had an absolute gutful and wanted to go home and spend time with my two babies and my wife, I couldn't believe back then that I would be standing in this parliament screaming, fighting and trying to convince all members of this chamber and the other house: 'Let's do this together. This is something we should do together. My kids should be no different to your kids, or the kids of the people up in the gallery.' Why are we outsourcing Aussie jobs? What is wrong with the government and the opposition working together, and even the crossbenches, regardless of whoever is in government, whether it is this side or that side, to improve the lot for the next generation? The ones who don't want to go to university just don't want to, not because they're dumb-dumbs.
There are some magnificent opportunities for kids to work with their hands or work with their minds, and they don't have to sit in a damn classroom for another four, five or six years to get them. Also, why are we defunding TAFEs? And this is not having a slap. I just want to pull you back; let's do this together. Why are we cutting out all the opportunities for kids to go and get the skills for these jobs? Look at our seafaring jobs. For crying out loud, we're outsourcing the Australian shipping industry. We're doing away with our seafarers, our masters and captains in a rush to appease big businesses that don't even pay tax on our shores. I know I will be attacked, 'We don't want nationalism and protectionism.' But do you know what? When it comes to our kids, their future and jobs, I do want to protect that. I stand proudly with my mates at the CFMEU. I am sure someone will have a crack at this: it is no secret that Glenn Sterle is a mate of the CFMEU and has been for many years. I was mates with the CFMEU before I even came to this place. But I will let you know this: the CFMEU didn't vote for me the first time I wanted to get into the Senate; they did the second time. I want to make that clear.
Fortunately, the CFMEU are out there. They have this paper called 'The perfect storm' and it highlights that, in the past five years, the number of apprenticeships and traineeships has halved. This is disgraceful. How can we look our kids in the eye and say: 'We're going to put a good pair of shoes on you. We're going to do everything we can to give you a great education. But guess what? We're not going to give you the opportunity to be a tradie or the opportunity to obtain skills that you don't have to go to university for.' Hello, Mr President. I was having a real good wind-up before you came in. I'm sorry you missed the first bit. Mr President, you're a father of two very fine sons—absolutely brilliant. Fortunately, they look like their mother! That's one good thing.
Let's start working together as a nation. For crying out loud, look at the West Aussies. I see on the other side my friend Senator Smith—that's going to bring you down the pecking order next pre-selection—and Senator Reynolds. Look at that boom we had, that magnificent opportunity in Western Australia where we had a mining and construction boom. I want to make this clear: we still have a mining boom, but it's just not in construction. But we see the gaps that have been left. We have seen the massive loss of opportunity in our great state, because those jobs are no longer there. But we didn't capitalise. We didn't stand up and say, 'You're welcome. Whoever you may be as a mining or an energy company, come into our state. Hey, if the Victorians don't want gas, come to WA. The doors are open. We're open for business. We're not going to put the fence up and keep you out. Come in and develop. Come in and explore. Come in and do whatever you do. But, if you want to trade in our state, there has to be some standards, and some of those standards must go to: how many apprenticeships are you going to create for Western Australian kids? If we can't fill it with Western Australian kids, how many apprenticeships will you supply for kids from other states of Australia or Tasmania? What's wrong with that?
Don't the states of Australia include Tasmania!
The mainland states—I knew someone would bite. I thought it would be the other side over there, not you, Senator Bilyk.
I put my hands out to other side of the chamber and ask how we can do this together. We cannot sit back and run this line that the shareholders must be looked after. If we have all these kids coming out of school, what are they going to do? Where the hell are they going to work? This is not rocket science.
I would love nothing more than my colleagues from the Liberals and Nationals on the other side to say, 'Gee, Sterle, how can we do this together? You know what? We've got kids and grandkids, and we're worried about their future. We want to give them an opportunity too.' It's time we pushed back to the blue carpet part of this building and said, 'Hang on, you've got a responsibility to create jobs for kids.'
In closing, I have just been handed this piece of paper. There's been a resignation today, all of a sudden, by the boss of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, Mr Nigel Hadgkiss. He's had to resign after admitting to breaking the law and, I'm very happy to say, not only has he broken the law; he's been flicked out over what he's been doing to construction workers around this nation. Minister Cash, you've done the first decent thing that I've heard from you all week and accepted the resignation— (Time expired)
It being 2 pm, we now move to questions without notice.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Yesterday, when asked to confirm that the average Sydney household is paying $1,000 more on their energy bills since this federal Liberal government came to power, the minister refused to answer. Given that the minister has had 24 hours to check, can he now confirm that the average Sydney household is paying $1,000 more for electricity since this federal Liberal government came to power?
That's just not true. I didn't refuse to answer the question at all. In fact, I gave you a very full answer, Senator McAllister. I didn't confirm the assertion you made then and I don't confirm it now. But, because you raised the issue of electricity prices, I can tell you, as I tried to tell you yesterday, what the Australian government is doing to ensure that there is downward pressure on electricity prices. First of all, Senator McAllister, we won't be repeating the mistake that you made—not you personally, of course; I don't think you were in the Senate at the time. We won't be repeating the mistake that your side of politics made of allowing unregulated export from the Australian gas market so that overseas consumers were able to buy Australian gas at lower prices than Australian consumers. We won't be repeating that mistake, which is why the Prime Minister and the minister for energy, Mr Frydenberg, on 24 July announced the new mechanism that will enable them to regulate the export of gas.
Secondly, Senator McAllister, we have also taken action to ensure that electricity providers are transparent with their customers by making available to all electricity consumers a mechanism whereby they can easily and readily establish the best available plan for them on their electricity bill. That is something which was the direct result of the Prime Minister's own personal intervention with the CEOs of the retail electricity suppliers—something that once—
Senator Wong interjecting—
Senator Wong, let me take your interjection. It was a very productive cup of tea, Senator Wong, because it resulted in millions of Australians being put in a position to reduce their electricity bill as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention. (Time expired)
Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.
Given that the average Sydney household is paying $1,000 more since the federal Liberal government came to power, will the minister admit that the government has failed in its promise to reduce power prices by $550?
Not only will I not admit it, but it's objectively wrong. In fact, we had the largest reduction in Australian retail power prices early in the life of this government when we abolished the carbon tax, imposed by the last Labor government. We saw the single greatest reduction in electricity prices in recent Australian history. Senator McAllister, frustrate as you do, play politics as you do, but you and your side are standing in the way of further reductions of power prices to Australians by getting in the way of the government legislating to abolish the limited merits review so that electricity retailers and suppliers can no longer game the system. The estimates of the savings to Australian consumers from the abolition or the prohibition of suppliers gaming the system is $3.5 billion, and you're standing in the way of those savings. (Time expired)
Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.
Given that the Liberal government has been in power for five years, isn't it clear that the policy paralysis under the Turnbull government is delivering higher energy prices, less investment and less reliability? When will the Prime Minister stand up to his party room and take action to end the energy crisis?
Senator McAllister, every single assertion in your question is wrong, including, by the way, the computational assertion. We have been in power for four years, not five. Senator McAllister, we are very proud of the measures that we have taken in those four years. Let me tell you, Senator McAllister, what our decisions have been informed by. Our decisions have been informed by the need for Australians to have affordable and reliable power. You of all people, Senator McAllister, being from the Labor Party—a party in power in South Australia where the state Labor government can't keep the lights on—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The people of South Australia, as a result of the ideological approach of Mr Weatherill and his Labor government, are facing another summer of blackouts and the people of Victoria, as a result of the ideological approach of Mr Daniel Andrews and his Labor government, are facing a summer of blackouts—because you put ideology before common sense. (Time expired)
My question is for the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Is the minister aware of any recent court decisions relating to unlawful conduct in the building and construction industry?
Unfortunately, yes, I am. I can inform the Senate that the Federal Court has today imposed fines on the CFMEU and 10 of its officials, including the notorious Luke Collier, Darren Greenfield and Brian Parker, in excess of $2.4 million for repeated and egregious breaches of workplace laws on the Barangaroo site in Sydney.
The comments made by Justice Flick in his decision are damning and include the following:
… the CFMEU has long demonstrated by its conduct that it pays but little regard to compliance with the law and indeed has repeatedly sought to place itself above the law.
And said that the CFMEU is to be regarded as a 'recidivist offender'. He continues:
It is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage any worse conduct than that pursued by the CFMEU.
The CFMEU assumes a prominent role in the industrial affairs of this country and has consistently exhibited a contempt for compliance with the law.
The conduct of its officers and employees has consistently shown a total contempt for the rights of occupiers and a total contempt for the constraints imposed by the law.
It goes on and on for pages and pages:
…the conduct for which the CFMEU assumes liability—
which is now approximately $2.4 million—
in the present proceeding shows a further and serious contempt for the law.
And what do we have from those on the other side, colleagues? Laughter. Absolute laughter. This is the most militant union in the country, which now has tens of millions of dollars in fines against it, and those on the other side can do nothing more than laugh.
Senator Paterson, a supplementary question.
Can the minister provide further details of any of the individuals involved in today's court judgement?
Yes, I can. One of the CFMEU officials who was fined $40,400 for his conduct was, of course, Mr Luke Collier. Mr Luke Collier, it will come as no surprise to this chamber, a CFMEU official, is a career criminal who has broken the law on multiple occasions. He has served jail time for assault. He has engaged in violence against women, including assaulting his former girlfriend. He has used some of the most foul and abusive language against female inspectors, including, 'You effing dog', 'You effing grub', 'You're lower than a paedophile, you effing grub' and 'You effing slut'.' And guess what? Those on the other side—and Senator Doug Cameron, mate, you in particular—stand up and defend Mr Collier. They defend this disgusting behaviour. Why? Because he's a mate, and that's the only reason they're in this place.
Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question?
Were the actions of any other individuals discussed in today's judgement?
They were—but normally Senator Cameron jumps up at this point and says, 'I have never defended Luke Collier.' So, for the benefit of the Senate, go to Senate estimates of 2014. Senator Cameron asked 61 questions defending Luke Collier for losing his right of entry permit. That's what those on the other side do. They stand up and they defend criminals—why? Because criminals put them in this place. They take tens of millions of dollars, the Australian Labor Party, from the most militant union in this country. So instead of standing up and saying, 'In relation to the $2.4 million fines today, and in particular the individual fines against 10 CFMEU officials,' have the guts to stand up and demand their resignations. Because, until you do, you are voiceless in this chamber.
Thank you, Minister. Senator Wong?
I wonder if I could ask you to review the Hansard after question time today. You have previously made a ruling in respect of four-letter words and abusive words being used in the context of so called quotations—
Even when quoting from a court ruling—
Excuse me.
Order, Senator Cash.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! I will determine whether Senator Wong has the right to be heard, and she does have the right to be heard.
Thank you, Mr President. You have previously made rulings in relation to this minister using quotations to get around the issue of four-letter words and abuse being put on to Hansard. I'd ask that you review the Hansard at a point subsequent to question time and consider whether your ruling has been infringed.
Thank you, Senator Wong. I will undertake to review the Hansard.
My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. This afternoon, the minister announced the resignation of Nigel Hadgkiss as commissioner of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Given the seriousness of Mr Hadgkiss's misbehaviour, why did the minister allow him to resign instead of just sacking him?
I have to say, seriously, I don't even know if I should dignify that with an answer. Because when you talk about serious behaviour, serious behaviour is what we saw today—a fine in excess of $2.4 million handed down against the CFMEU—
Senator Carr, a point of order?
This is a serious question, and it goes to the question of a Commonwealth officer breaching the law. The minister has said that this was a question that did not deserve an answer. There is a question of relevance that I draw to your attention. It's a specific question, and the minister ought answer it directly.
I will remind the minister of the question.
Thank you, Mr President, and, as I have said, Mr Hadgkiss today did tender his resignation today to the government as head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and the government accepted that resignation. But in relation to the conduct of those on the other side, and those that they support, let me remind you—
A point of order, Senator Cameron?
Government senators interjecting—
On my right—just a moment, Senator Cameron
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator Macdonald, and senators on my left as well. Order!
It's on direct relevance. My question was simple. It was only one question: why did the minister allow him to resign instead of just sacking him?
The minister did answer by indicating that the government did accept the resignation and announced the resignation. I feel as though the minister has been directly relevant to the question by the way she has answered the question in the first instance. I know it's not as specific as you would like, Senator Cameron, but I think she has been directly relevant to the answer. Minister, had you concluded your answer?
I will not stand here and be lectured by those on the other side who stand up and defend criminal behaviour across unions, and in particular the CFMEU. I will not stand here and be lectured by those on the other side who take tens of millions of dollars from a criminal organisation. I will not stand here and be lectured by those on the other side—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Senator Cameron, on a point of order?
Yes, Mr President—again on relevance. This was a very serious question about a commissioner appointed by this minister having to resign because of illegal activity. I'm asking why the minister did not sack this individual, and she should answer it.
A government senator interjecting—
Order on my right! Senator Cameron, in relation to the point of order, you did ask: why did the minister accept the resignation rather than sack? The minister indicated that she did accept the resignation or the government had accepted the resignation. The minister has been directly relevant to the question. The minister has heard your points of order on two occasions, Senator Cameron. The minister has 50 seconds left and I invite the minister to continue her answer.
Deny, distract and then defend. Let's go through, again, a number of those who are well known to those on the other side and the behaviour they have indulged in. Shaun Reardon, the CFMEU's Victorian assistant state secretary, has already been fined $50,000. He was actually a White Ribbon ambassador until he was dumped by White Ribbon for his disgusting behaviour when it comes to violence against women. That is who those on the other side defend. Gareth Stephenson, another CFMEU organiser, has been fined $118,000. Ralph Edwards, the Victorian branch president, has already been fined $53,250 and, of course, then there's Duncan McAllister, with 101 alleged breaches, including coercion and threats. (Time expired)
Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.
Mr Hadgkiss has admitted to recklessly breaching section 503 of the Fair Work Act. When did the minister first become aware of the behaviour that Mr Hadgkiss now admits was a breach of the act?
I became aware of the behaviour in October 2016.
Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.
In announcing Mr Hadgkiss's resignation, the minister said he 'has played a pivotal role in restoring the rule of law'. How can the minister make this claim given Mr Hadgkiss has himself admitted to recklessly breaching the law?
Again, Mr President, I will not stand here and be lectured by those on the other side who stand here and defend the most militant union in Australia, many of whom have been found guilty of what is criminal conduct. I will not stand here and be lectured to by those on the other side who happily defend members of the CFMEU.
Senator Cameron, a point of order.
I was not lecturing; I simply asked a question: how can the minister make this claim given Mr Hadgkiss has himself admitted to recklessly breaching the law? That was the question. It's on relevance.
I will remind the minister of the question. Minister, you have 32 seconds in which to answer.
Again, I will not stand here and be lectured by those on the other side whilst they continue to take tens of millions of dollars from the CFMEU, who have been found to be the most militant union in this country, and when Federal Court judge after Federal Court judge has stated that they have no regard for the law.
Senator Cameron, a point of order.
Again, Mr President, my point of order goes to relevance. This was about Mr Hadgkiss having to resign because of recklessly breaking the law. That was the question.
Thank you, Senator Cameron. I'll accept your point of order again. I will remind the minister of the question.
I've finished.
My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Can the minister confirm that, after months of leadership tussle, Tony Abbott is now back leading the Liberal Party's energy policy and now there will be a dirty energy target which includes coal? Can the minister confirm that extending the life of a coal-fired power station will make global warming worse and threaten future investment in renewables and that this latest move will only drive up pollution and power prices and threaten the stability of the energy grid?
No, Senator Hanson-Young. Not only can I not confirm any of those things, but I can tell you that every one of the propositions that you have put to me in your question is wrong. Senator Hanson-Young, I must say, in fairness to the Greens, that at least you believe this nonsense—at least you believe this ideologically driven war against the coal industry. Those in the Labor Party are merely trying to follow your lead, and the Australian people know it. But, Senator Hanson-Young, the truth is that, as you well know, for many years to come coal will be an important part of the Australian energy mix. Nobody who has examined this industry with any skill or scholarship disputes that, for many years to come, coal will be an important part of the Australian energy mix.
We on our side of parliament are not ideological about this, as you are. What we believe in is the engineering—we are instructed by the engineering; we are instructed by the economics. What we are doing is designing a suite of policies to make sure that energy is as reliable and as affordable to the Australian people as it can be. That means that we are technology agnostic. Coal, as I said a moment ago, will continue for years to come to be an important part of the energy mix, and so will other fossil fuels like gas and so will renewable energy, which is an increasing part of the energy mix. All of these are important parts of the energy mix, but, unlike the Greens, Senator Hanson-Young, rather than having an ideological—nay, almost theological—obsession with one part of the energy mix, we have an all-of-the-above approach. We have a platform, a technology agnostic approach— (Time expired)
Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question.
This agnostic view seems to be leading you to a position of flip-flopping on energy policy. You have absolutely no plan. Can the Attorney-General please explain why you think it is right to wilfully deceive the public over the AMEO's report last week, which clearly said that action on climate change— (Time expired)
Senator Hanson-Young, you assert that we do not have an energy policy, and that is entirely wrong. When it comes to climate change, Senator Hanson-Young, as I have pointed out to you many times over the years, Australia adopted at Copenhagen the most ambitious per capita reductions targets in the world—so, so much for having no policy in relation to climate change. But on energy policy more broadly, as I said a moment ago, we are technology agnostic because we understand that there are different contributors to the aggregate supply of energy in Australia. That includes coal, it includes gas, it includes renewables such as solar and wind, it includes stored power and it includes projects such as Snowy Hydro 2.0, of which the Prime Minister has been such a champion. We will configure our policy in a way that makes energy most affordable— (Time expired)
Senator Hanson-Young, a final supplementary question.
Today Sydney is experiencing record-breaking temperatures for September, the highest in almost 160 years. There are currently 70 fires burning across New South Wales as we speak. The public is being asked to report unattended fires. We know that global warming is making cyclones and bushfires worse. How does the government justify their dirty energy target in light of all of this?
Senator Hanson-Young, with respect, I think you're letting yourself get a little carried away with the rhetoric. We make no apologies whatsoever for adopting an energy policy that will make electricity prices as affordable as possible for the Australian people—unlike those opposite, under whose period in government electricity prices rose by 101 per cent—and we make no apologies as well for ensuring the reliability of supply. Senator Hanson-Young, you come from the state of South Australia, where the very result of the ideological, theological attitude to energy policy saw that state go into blackout, because the state Labor government didn't get the energy mix right. And we are fearful that, as a result of the ideological approach of state Labor governments in South Australia, Victoria and Queensland, the same mistake will happen this summer as well. (Time expired)
I acknowledge the presence in the President's gallery of former Senator Allison and former Chief Justice Gleeson. I welcome you both to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs representing the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Scullion. Can the minister update the Senate on any recent developments in the resources sector?
I thank Senator Williams for the question. Senator Williams knows very well that the growth of the economy and the support of our resources sector are most important roles for government. So, Senator Williams, I hope you'll be pleased with the reports I've provided this week. Two hundred and thirty thousand jobs were supplied to breadwinners who are supported in the resources industry.
However, today I can update the Senate that there are reports that the Mount Piper power station may be forced to shut down as a result of a recent court decision about the operation of Springvale mine, which provides the coal to that power station. In August 2017, the New South Wales Court of Appeal found that the New South Wales government's 2015 approval process should not have been granted due to the wrong application of the test on water quality. It has actually nothing to do with water quality; it is a technical matter. So that's now being dealt with by the New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment. Whilst this is a matter for the New South Wales government, I can tell you that the Commonwealth is very keen to see this issue resolved as soon as possible because it has the potential to have a significant impact on energy security and, of course, the social and economic wellbeing of Lithgow. The Springvale mine and Mount Piper provide for 600 jobs in the region, but, very importantly, it also provides for 15 per cent of the energy of New South Wales. To lose that would be a complete disaster.
The court challenge is as a result of another green activist group called 4nature. Time and time again, inner-city activists, who've never been to the regions and have probably never met any of the 600 people whose jobs are going to fall to the ground, campaign against the mines in the region. The rest of the world is building coal-fired power stations—China, India and Japan—with high efficiency and low emissions, which is the way of the future. We are committed on this side to do everything we can to support the resources sector. (Time expired)
Senator Williams, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister. Is the minister aware of any threats to jobs in the resources industry?
Unfortunately, we continue to see court challenges from green activists which are now, as we said, putting 600 jobs at risk in Lithgow and 220 jobs in your own state of New South Wales, Senator Williams. At least some people in this place are up-front about where they stand. The Greens, as we know, are on the record as opposing coal. Everyone knows where they stand and they've been clear about that. I have no problem with that at all. I may disagree with it, but I admire the fact that they're absolutely up-front about it. Others are unfortunately not so up-front. You just need to see who's backed this sort activism. I'm not talking about a bloke having a chat with his two mates in a pub either. I'm actually talking about the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, who has provided $100,000 out of Australian Workers Union money to GetUp!—the very group that is trying to put these workers out of a job.
Senator Williams, a final supplementary question.
That is unbelievable. Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to resources policy and can the minister explain how these have impacted upon Australia's energy security?
Unfortunately, there are some alternative approaches to these matters. Our government backed the resources industry. We understand the importance of energy security and jobs. Unfortunately, it's those opposite who want to see the destruction of the coal industry. If those opposite were in government, the Leader of the Opposition would cause blackouts across this nation. The member for Port Adelaide would see us in constant brownouts, and there would be no coal under the watch of the member for Hunter. Under Labor, we would not be talking about a clean energy future but a zero energy future. They applauded when Hazelwood shut—isn't this a great challenge for government and for Australia? They are dictated to by GetUp! They have forgotten the blue-collar workers and they have forgotten coal.
You just need to look at the impact on families, power and business in the state of South Australia to see when power prices reach record highs. That's the sort of place we don't want to see Australia go— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Defence. With total contract values adding up to $32.7 billion for the last financial year, Defence is by far the largest procuring agency in the Commonwealth. According to AusTender, in financial year 2012-13, 51 per cent of all procurements were sought by way of limited tender. Limited tenders are tenders where the number of vendors that can respond to the tender are limited, sometimes to only one company. In 2013-14, the percentage was also 51 per cent. In 2014-15, the number started climbing to 53 per cent. In financial year 2015-16, it skyrocketed to 65 per cent. In the last financial year, the percentage was even higher, with 67 per cent of all Defence procurement, totalling $15.2 billion, sought by limited tender. What analytics has the minister carried out in respect of this dramatic rise in the use of limited tender, and what is the reason for it?
I thank Senator Kakoschke-Moore for her question. The senator has noted a particular increase in the proportion of procurements let by Defence using limited tenders since 2015-16. I acknowledge, Senator, the provision of some information in relation to the question to enable me to provide an answer. Thank you for that. I would note that it appears that the figures that you have quoted prior to 2015-16 don't include the procurements of the former Defence Materiel Organisation. So, in fact, it's not, as you have described, a 'skyrocketing increase'. It is, in fact, adding back in the Defence Materiel Organisation.
As you would be aware, DMO was absorbed back into Defence as part of the reforms that the government introduced following the first principles review. Given the exemption of procurements for acquisition and sustainment of Defence materiel from the operation of parts of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, it makes total sense that there would be therefore an increase in Defence's use of limited tenders. That exemption exists because of the unique nature of Defence procurements. Often, there are only a couple suppliers—perhaps a single supplier—who can provide the materiel required. We do try and limit when we use limited tenders but, clearly, the work of CASG, formally the DMO, often requires that.
More broadly, as you would also be aware, the CPRs also allow agencies to utilise limited tender arrangements in a number of limited circumstances, such as when they are seeking to utilise Indigenous-owned business—small-to-medium enterprises—under the Commonwealth's Indigenous Procurement Policy. Defence is actually the best-performing agency in the Commonwealth in relation to the number of contracts we have let to Indigenous enterprises. Defence complies fully with the requirements of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, including in our use of limited tender arrangements.
Senator Kakoschke-Moore, a supplementary question.
Limited tenders reduce the number of entities that can compete for work, often to a single entity. Noting the importance of competition in achieving value for money, what is the minister doing to ensure that this trend is reversed?
I am afraid I do have to disagree with the sentiments of the senator's question. There hasn't been the increasing trend that the senator has referred to in the last sentence of her question. It is a matter of the former Defence Materiel Organisation coming into Defence's numbers. What I can say, though, is that the government's first principles review of defence considered all issues surrounding procurement in Defence, particularly as part of the capability life cycle. That was a coalition election commitment from 2013, which was kicked off by our former colleague and minister Senator Johnston, and the outcomes of the FPR are an outstanding piece of work and a most valuable contribution by Senator Johnston.
We've introduced new Smart Buyer arrangements to better establish exactly when limited tender arrangements should be used. It actually makes sense sometimes to use a limited tender when there are only a limited number of suppliers, or even a single supplier, of specialist defence materiel. It saves other companies money by not competing for something they can't win. It saves the Commonwealth and the taxpayer money. (Time expired)
Senator Kakoschke-Moore, a final supplementary question.
The Commonwealth Procurement Rules were changed this March to require procurement officials to take into account the economic benefit of any purchase, including the number of Australian jobs, the amount of local investment and the supply chain impact. Does the minister concede that restricting the number of tenderers—sometimes to one—inhibits opportunities for the department to maximise these economic benefits, including with regard to Australian jobs?
I acknowledge the changes to the CPRs that the senator has outlined, but I don't concede her assertion in relation to the use of limited tenders when appropriate. In fact, I have already directed the Department of Defence to take full advantage of the CPR changes to drive up the level of Australian industry across all procurements, in particular for procurement that relates to infrastructure and to major capital facilities. As the Senate would be aware, I referred last week to the introduction of a Local Industry Capability Plan pilot, which I have introduced to ensure that local industry has the best possible opportunity to be involved in the government's unprecedented $200 billion investment in defence capability over the next decade. The pilot projects require tenderers bidding for major capital facilities projects to state clearly how they've engaged with local industry in providing their tendered solution and how local industry will specifically be involved in delivering the work packages that underpin the projects. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister outline how the Turnbull government is ensuring that the higher education student loan scheme remains sustainable for students and also for taxpayers?
I thank Senator Reynolds for her question and her commitment to higher education access on fair terms for all Australians. Since 1989, the income contingent loan scheme in Australia, known as HECS or HELP, has been groundbreaking in terms of world recognition as a leading way of providing fair, equitable access for all Australians wanting to obtain university education without any up-front fees. Since that time, student numbers have tripled. Indeed, since 2009, when the demand-driven system was introduced for Australian universities, Commonwealth supported places have increased by a further one-third.
But, equally, since 2009, outstanding loans have increased from around $20 billion to over $50 billion. Around 12 per cent of total Commonwealth gross debt is now a student loan under the HELP scheme. That is why the Turnbull government is proposing changes to the loans scheme. There will be a new threshold of $42,000 and a new, lower first repayment step at one per cent—notably, one-quarter of what was proposed by the Grattan Institute—and higher rates of repayment for higher income earners. This is about ensuring the sustainability of the HECS and HELP scheme. As the respected economist from the ANU and architect of the HECS scheme, Professor Bruce Chapman, said earlier this year:
The evidence is now overwhelming that changes to the level of the charge, or other aspects of HECS-HELP, such as the first threshold of repayment, have no discernible effects on student behavior or choices. This has been true for all Australian experience with HECS, including its introduction in 1989 …
In fact, in that time, participation has only gone up and participation by all equity groups—all those from different areas of disadvantage—has gone up by a dramatic level. It is a success, but it is critical we guarantee its viability and sustainability into the future— (Time expired)
Senator Reynolds, a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for that answer. Can he now update the Senate on what the OECD's Education at a glance report, which, I understand, was only released this morning, says about Australia's standing in higher education within the OECD?
The OECD's Education at a glance report demonstrates that Australia's total expenditure on higher education from all sources stands at 1. 6 per cent of GDP, which is above the OECD average of 1.4 per cent. It further shows that Australia's direct public expenditure on all tertiary institutions and publicly-funded student loans and subsidies stands at 1.4 per cent of GDP, again above the OECD average of 1.3 per cent. It equates to some 3.8 per cent of all government spending in Australia versus an OECD average of 3.1 per cent. Expenditure per student at the bachelor, masters or PhD level is well above the OECD average, the seventh highest in the OECD, with Australian average investment of some US$19,700 per student versus an OECD average of $16,600 or so per student. It is a demonstration that we are a country that invests well and, under the Turnbull government, we will continue to invest— (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Reynolds, a final supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of any alternative policies to keep higher education sustainable for students and for taxpayers?
While the Turnbull government has very clear policies for the future, there is very little we can discern from those opposite, aside from their obstruction, their opposition and their desire to not face up to the reality of the problems that we face in ensuring the budget is balanced and that the contribution higher education makes to increased spending is taken into account. It wasn't always that way. Back in 2013 then Prime Minister Julia Gillard said:
… the number of places has grown, but funding has also gone up per student place. Money to universities is still going to grow. We've got universities on a growth path. What we are asking them to do is … to accept [an] efficiency dividend … their money would still grow, it just wouldn't grow as fast as they'd obviously wanted … .
Well, in 2013 Ms Gillard had it right, and, of course, Labor has backed down on the efficiency dividend since then. The Turnbull government believes it is a fair and reasonable way to make sure the budget is sustainable into the future. (Time expired)
My question is to Senator Cormann, representing the Treasurer. Labor has withheld their PVA costings on alternative tax policies. Can you please advise whether the Labor's proposed increase in the legislated small business company tax rate would cost Australians $29 billion over the next decade; whether their denial of deductions for housing investment expenses would cost us $32 billion; whether their increase in capital gains tax would cost us $13 billion; whether their increase in the top income tax rate to 47 cents would cost us $22 billion; whether their increase in tax on low-income trust beneficiaries would cost us $17 billion; and whether their superannuation tax increases would cost $20 billion? Doesn't this add up to around $5,000 extra tax per Australian over the decade?
Senator Wong, a point of order.
My question is whether that question is in order. Mr President, I know you've extended in recent times further latitude than previous Presidents on alternative policies. On that formulation, there is nothing in that question that relates to government policy. It is entirely about alleged opposition policy.
Senator Brandis, on the point of order?
The question is plainly directed to the minister's portfolio and every one of the subquestions that Senator Leyonhjelm has asked about has a direct relevance to aspects of Senator Cormann's portfolio.
Senator Wong interjecting—
I'm taking your point of order into account, Senator Wong. I agree that the question was directed to the minister representing the Treasurer. The elements do relate to the Treasurer; however, it was directed at the Labor Party's policy. I am in a quandary; however, I will allow the question. But I will reflect upon that. Senator Cormann?
I would like to add to the point of order, just to help you reflect on it.
Opposition senators interjecting—
On the point of order: questions can be directed to ministers about public statements that they have made. I have spoken expansively about the devastating effect of Labor Party policy on the economy and jobs, and the question that Senator Leyonhjelm asked goes directly to public comments and public statements that I have made as a minister in the past and therefore is directly appropriate.
In any event, I have ruled that I will allow the question to stand. I will reflect upon the six sub-elements that Senator Leyonhjelm asked in the context of his primary question. At the end of his question, there was a calculation that he asked the minister to confirm. I'm going to allow the question, but, Senator Wong, in fairness, I will reflect on that.
I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for that very important question. This has again shown how desperate the Labor Party are to hide from the Australian people the devastating impact on the economy, jobs and opportunities of their high-taxing, socialist agenda. We on this side of the chamber are in favour of helping Australians today and in the future to get ahead. Of course, to ensure that they have the best possible opportunity to get ahead, the businesses that employ them have to be as profitable and successful as possible.
So I'm pleased—well, I'm not pleased; it is my sorry duty—to confirm that the impact of Labor's policy to increase taxes on small and medium-sized businesses by rolling back the tax cuts that have already been legislated would be to increase taxes on small and medium-sized businesses by $29.8 billion to 2027-28. I'm sad to confirm that, compared to the government's policy settings, Labor's policy when it comes to business taxation would have the effect of increasing the tax burden on business by $65.4 billion. Just reversing tax cuts for businesses with a turnover of between $2 million and $50 million would increase the tax burden on small and medium-size businesses by $25.4 billion. That would hurt about 6.5 million workers across Australia working for 3.2 million Australian businesses. So that is clearly a very bad policy.
Indeed, Labor's tax on housing investment, by their own numbers in the lead-up to the last election, would increase the tax burden by $27 billion. But there's now a further year that comes into the equation, which is why it would increase the tax burden by $32 billion. It is also true that Labor propose to increase tax on investment, through their capital gains tax changes, by about $13 billion, and it is also true— (Time expired)
Senator Leyonhjelm, a supplementary question?
Minister, with the coalition's increased Medicare levy and tax hikes on superannuation, smokers, banks, hiring foreign workers and low-value imports, the budget says Commonwealth tax will be more than 25 per cent of GDP in a decade's time compared to 22 per cent now. Doesn't this add up to around $10,000 of extra tax per Australian over the decade? Isn't the coalition turning Australia even more socialist than Labor?
(—) (): The answer to that question is no. I have explained this to Senator Leyonhjelm before. Unlike the Labor Party, the coalition has made a commitment not to increase the tax burden in the economy above 23.9 per cent as a share of GDP. That is the same line in the sand—the same cap—on tax as a share of GDP that we have imposed on ourselves in every single one of our budgets. We know that Labor, based on their policy statements so far, are proposing to blow that tax as a share of GDP cap out of the water. Labor are proposing to increase the overall tax burden in the economy, which will hurt investment, hurt the economy, cost jobs and lead to fewer jobs and lower wages. We are absolutely committed to keeping the tax burden as a share of GDP below 23.9 per cent, which is the basis on which all of our revenue forecasts in our budgets are calculated. That is the contrast—23.9 per cent cap on taxes as a share of GDP us and no cap under Labor. (Time expired)
Senator Leyonhjelm, a final supplementary question.
The Liberal Democrats have policy costings published on the PBO website to halve income tax, to abolish fuel, alcohol, tobacco and import taxes, and to cut spending to deliver budget surpluses and a tax-to-GDP ratio of 13 per cent. But, as this compares poorly to China's tax-to-GDP ratio of 10 per cent, can you please accuse the Liberal Democrats of being socialist too?
As a result of the decisions that this government has made in relation to expenditure in government, net spending over the medium term has reduced by about $300 billion. That is $300 billion that either we don't have to borrow or will be available to reduce debt once we have returned to surplus, which on current indications is expected to happen by 2021.
I say again: on the coalition side, on the Liberal-National Party side, our commitment is to keep taxes as low as possible but as high as necessary in order to fund the necessary services of government that Australians expect to be delivered by their government—as high as necessary but as low as possible because we are mindful that leaving people with more of their own money helps them to strengthen the economy, strengthen growth and strengthen opportunity across Australia, because people across Australia are better at spending their own money than the government.
My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Nash. Today Deputy Prime Minister Joyce claimed that Delta Electricity had 'put an expression of interest out today in the purchase of Liddell'. Delta Company Secretary Steve Gurney has said that the company has not lodged an expression of interest and said: 'Liddell is not for sale—it is not on the market.' Who is right?
I'm not aware of those specific comments, but I can certainly advise the Senate that there have been very constructive discussions between the government and the owners of Liddell about ensuring the future provision of energy in this country. It is of no surprise to those on this side of the chamber that it is the coalition government that is working tirelessly to ensure that we provide affordable and reliable energy for Australians right across the country. Those on the other side simply will not focus on that issue. We on this side of the chamber, the coalition, recognise that, when it comes to the provision of reliable and affordable energy, it is an all-of-the-above policy. That includes coal and all of the other options.
Senator O'Neill, point of order?
Point of order, Mr President. The question was about a particular company, Delta Electricity, about particular comments from the company secretary, Steve Gurney, and about comments from the Deputy Prime Minister. The minister has not answered the question and is straying very far from it.
To the contrary. Your question was: who was correct? The minister said she was not aware of the comments. So the minister has indicated that she can't answer that question from that perspective. Minister.
Thank you very much, Mr President. It is entirely appropriate that this government consider options for extending the provision of energy from coal into the future as part of that all-of-the-above energy mix. It is those on this side of the chamber, the coalition, not those opposite, who actually care about people across this country being able to access affordable and reliable energy. We will keep making decisions to ensure that that happens. And all credit to the Prime Minister when we look at Snowy Hydro 2.0, looking at long-term provision of energy right across this country to people out in our communities, who need a government to be focused on this, and the coalition certainly is. There have been discussions with the retailers about ensuring that consumers right across this country can have access to energy at the most affordable level. Around two million Australians will be able to benefit from those discussions and what was arrived at in those conversations. It is the coalition that is going to ensure that we deliver reliable and affordable energy.
Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question.
Given that the coalition is into its fifth year of government, why is it grasping at hypothetical commercial transactions rather than ending the policy paralysis that's crippling investment in energy generation?
I completely reject that. This government is taking sensible, measured decisions to ensure the provision of affordable and reliable energy—in direct contrast to the Labor Party. You only have to look at South Australia and the Labor government in South Australia and the mess we have seen down there, for people living right across that state, with the lack of ability to provide any kind of reliable energy. It is the coalition that is going to continue to work hard to ensure that we provide for the Australian people the reliable and affordable energy that they deserve.
Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question.
While the government is insisting AGL make a decision on the future of Liddell in 90 days, the government has failed to agree a position on the clean energy target after 96 days and counting. Why is the government trying to force AGL to meet a standard it has failed?
Again, I reject that question. We were having very sensible and measured deliberations around the future of the provision of energy in this country, and that includes around, potentially, a CET. But what we're not going to do is take advice from those opposite, who gave this country a carbon tax. Let me tell you, Mr President: they brought in a carbon tax that hit regional Australia harder than anywhere else. And quite possibly they want to bring it back. We will take sensible, measured decisions in the best interests of the Australian people, which is something the Labor Party is simply incapable of doing.
My question is to the Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Can the minister update the Senate on Australia's participation in the 48th Pacific Islands Forum?
I thank Senator McKenzie for her question and her interest in matters Pacific. Australia's engagement in the Pacific is one of our highest priorities. As I've said on different occasions, after the defence of Australia, the stability and security of our region is our highest priority. The Pacific Islands Forum is the pre-eminent political body in the Pacific region. It brings together heads of government to address those shared challenges. As we know, in the Pacific we work best when we work together, as we did in RAMSI, the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands.
The 48th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting enabled Australia to advance some of our collective efforts addressing climate issues; preparing for natural disasters; managing illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing; improving economic opportunity in the region; and addressing old and new security challenges, including transnational crime, disease outbreaks and cyberattacks. These are the shared challenges that our neighbourhood faces, and it's important that we address them together.
The theme of this year's Pacific Islands Forum was Blue Pacific, and we focused on oceans and issues related to economic returns from fisheries. The Pacific Islands Forum aims to encourage more effective and stronger coordination in our region, through our Framework for Pacific Regionalism. At last year's Pacific Islands Forum, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull indicated that we would be stepping up our engagement in the Pacific, and we are delivering on this commitment in terms of security, labour and pharmaceutical MOUs that were signed. The nature and the complexity of the challenges that are faced in the Pacific show the diversity of the engagement that we have— (Time expired)
Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question.
Can the minister advise the Senate of the outcomes achieved at the 48th Pacific Islands Forum meeting?
Pacific island leaders agreed to commence work on a new regional security declaration, to position the region better to deal with those new and emerging security challenges—transnational crime, people smuggling, cyberattacks, health security and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. To this end, Australia is funding the new aerial surveillance mission to help us detect and disrupt illegal fishing. Flights are expected to commence before the end of the year. This will help us address transnational crime and people smuggling. This enhances also our $2 billion Pacific Maritime Security Program and the replacement of the 19 patrol boats. Our new Pacific labour scheme will give workers from Pacific island countries the opportunity to work in Australia and remit important remittances, which are so vital to their economies.
Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question.
Can the minister explain how Australia stands to benefit as a result of the meeting?
We are committed to continuing cooperation. Security and stability in our region are vitally important. The Turnbull government is focused on identifying a range of new measures to increase the integration into the Pacific. Among our security measures, we signed new security MOUs with a number of countries. This follows on from the post-RAMSI security agreement that we have with the Solomon Islands. We have new MOUs with different countries in relation to pharmaceutical laboratory testing. These initiatives bolster the measures to address common security challenges and further integrate our Pacific economies—and of course, build up that very important resilience in the Pacific, in helping them.
Can I conclude by congratulating the Samoan government and, especially, the Samoan police force for the absolutely fantastic display they put on. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I rise to table answers to questions taken on notice and seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The answers read as follows—
Home Care Packages Program - Answer to question taken on notice – 12 September, 2017
A national prioritisation list for the Home Care Packages Program was introduced in February, but vulnerable older Australians are still in the dark about where they are in the queue and how long they will have to wait to receive a package. Minister Ken Wyatt first promised to release the wait-time data in July and, following that failure, recommitted to do so by the end of August. Given it is now the second week in September, when will the Turnbull government finally release this information?
Response:
On 27 February 2017, the Turnbull Government announced the landmark Increasing Choice reforms, giving older Australians choice and control over their home care packages for the first time.
This new system means that packages are being released directly to consumers, and consumers who have the most urgent needs or who have been waiting the longest receive their packages first.
Under the old system, consumers were still waiting for packages, however there was no way to determine how many consumers were waiting and for how long. The new system introduced by this Government will allow for this transparency, and allow consumers to access the information that will help them plan for the future.
Targets for release of home care packages were set under the Labor Government in 2012 under the Living Longer Living Better reforms, and we now know that what Labor planned for was vastly inadequate compared to the actual need.
The Department of Health has been analysing the data from the new system, and working to ensure that when released the data is in a format that is usable and helpful for Australian consumers, and another Labor policy failure has made this process more difficult.
The Turnbull Government is committed to increasing the transparency of the aged care system, and ensuring greater consumer knowledge over their aged care, and we will be releasing the data shortly.
If Australians have questions concerning waiting times, they should direct these to the Labor Party, and ask why they set targets that were inadequate for the actual needs.
Senator Polley: How many older Australians are waiting for each level of the aged-care home care packages?
Response:
As has been stated already, the number of individuals waiting are far greater than the Labor Government's reforms catered for.
As an example, when she was introducing the Living Longer Living Better reforms to the Senate on 17 June 2013, the then Minister, Senator Collins, said in relation to the release of home care packages "under these reforms they would be increasing the total allocation to almost 100,000 over the next five years".
In contrary, since the introduction of the Increasing Choice reforms by this government, we have released over 70,000 packages this year alone.
This just goes to show again that Labor totally failed to adequately plan for the implementation of their own reforms, and this Government is cleaning up the mess.
Senator Polley: Vulnerable older people are being forced out of their own homes and into residential care and hospitals and, in more dire cases, are passing away while they are still waiting for support from the Turnbull government. Why is the Turnbull government failing to act to support older Australians?
Response:
For Senator Polley to assert that older Australians are dying as a result of lack of action by this Government is unhelpful.
The reality is, that under Labor it was impossible to determine how many people were waiting, or for how long. If not for the reforms introduced by this Government earlier in the year, this would never have been the case.
The assertion that we are taking no action is simply inaccurate. The very fact individuals will be able to see where they are in the queue is a direct result of action taken by this Government.
This means that for the very first time we are able to monitor and track where an individual is in the queue, and this was not possible under the previous system.
Additionally we have released over 70,000 packages since the introduction of Increasing Choice, and we continue to periodically release more packages at roughly 2000 per week.
The Government also allocated $5.5bn in the 2017 Budget towards the extension of the Commonwealth Home Support Programme. This huge investment in our older Australians is about supporting them to remain independent in their own homes for longer, while ensuring they have the care they require.
Senator Polley's assertion is false. The contrast could not be more stark. This Government is continuing to provide support for older Australians to remain in their own home and their communities, while the Labor party has shown that they aren't even capable of planning for the real needs of the Australian people.
Senate Eligibility - Answer to question taken on notice - 5 September, 2017
I am continuing to execute my duties as Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government and Territories and Minister for Regional Communications.
As part of my ongoing ministerial duties, I attend official meetings, receive and approve departmental briefings, sign ministerial correspondence, make formal ministerial decisions and sign funding agreements regularly and frequently.
This will continue to be the case.
I do not intend to provide a live tally on these duties.
Warrego Highway upgrade - Answer to question taken on notice – 12 September, 2017
Contracts relating to the Warrego Highway upgrade are awarded by the Queensland State Government.
The Commonwealth plays no part in the tender or the awarding of the contract.
Any questions relating to the contracting of this project should be directed to the Queensland Government.
Senator O'Sullivan has expressed publicly that he does not have, nor has he ever had, any interest in a corporation or entity that a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in an agreement with the public service of the Commonwealth of Australia.
I can also confirm that the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has advised that there are no contractual or other agreements between or involving the Commonwealth acting through my Department and the Newlands Group.
Under standing order 74(5)(a), I seek an explanation from the Minister for Training and Education, Senator Birmingham, as to why question Nos 912, 914, 915, 917, 923, 925, 928, 934, 937, 942, 946 and 952, which I placed on notice on 8 June 2017, remain unanswered.
Senator Cameron, you're well aware that there are many questions on notice that I have received over the last 12 months. My portfolio has handled 1,528 questions on notice. Of those, 1,366 have related to Senate estimates questions. Of those, 1,133 have had responses tabled. I assure you that all responses to estimates questions will be tabled in relation well ahead of the next estimates hearing.
Answers to these questions are now two months overdue. I move:
That the Senate take note of the explanation.
A government senator: I think he's moving to waste time, actually.
I'll take that interjection from Senator Brandis. He indicated that I was moving to waste time.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator Birmingham, these questions—
Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Brandis, on a point of order?
I didn't say anything, Madam Deputy President. Senator Birmingham made a private remark to me. He wasn't interjecting at all.
Well, that's pretty pathetic from the Attorney-General. Senator Birmingham raised this point across the chamber. Answers to these questions are two months overdue. The response from the minister was pretty pathetic—he gets a lot of questions. Which minister would not get lots of questions through the estimates process? That's what the estimates process is for: to ask questions and get responses within a laid-down time frame. This minister has failed to meet that. There are not only the questions that I've put forward here today; there are 88 questions in total that remain unanswered that I asked the minister. The minister has a battalion of public servants to help him respond to these questions.
A regiment or a battalion.
A regiment of public servants; it could be a battalion. I don't want to take up too much time of the Senate today. I am seeking an explanation linked to 12 questions on notice that relate to the government's Skilling Australians Fund. The questions are seeking detail about the security of the funding under the Skilling Australians Fund: what the Skilling Australians Fund will pay for and how the Skilling Australians Fund will operate. The government put together the so-called Skilling Australians Fund prior to May this year, prior to the budget, and they can't answer simple questions about how this fund will operate. I'm not surprised, given how bizarre the funding for the Skilling Australians Fund is, that they've got some problems.
This is a fund that relies on bringing skilled visa workers into Australia to pay for the Skilling Australians Fund, which is supposed to pay to skill young Australians. How bizarre can it get? So you bring more skilled people in to try to pay for the skilling of Australian workers. That will simply result in more visas—which, according to some government documentation, are supposed to decline in number over a period. That will mean less money to skill up young Australians. We should not be relying solely on income from foreign skilled labour being brought into this country to pay for the skilling, the apprenticeships and the traineeships, of Australians. It shows you how bizarre this government have become and how out of whack they are with the needs of industry and this country.
The Skilling Australians Fund was announced as part of the government's 2017 budget. The budget paper states that it will provide $1.5 billion over four years from 2017-18 and will prioritise apprenticeships and traineeships. It will operate with matched funding from the states. The government claims that it will support up to 300,000 more apprentices, trainees and higher-level skilled Australians over the next four years. Given that the estimates of growth of jobs in the economy is 900,000 in total over the forward estimates, this will equate to one-third of all new jobs apparently being taken up by apprentices and trainees—over 33 per cent. At the moment, apprenticeships and trainees represent just over 2.5 per cent. This is bizarre. It's just not clear how this is going to operate effectively.
Eligibility for the fund will be defined by the Commonwealth. It will fund projects focused on Commonwealth priorities. States' access to the fund will be conditional on their agreement to meeting conditions, including a focus on priority areas, matching Commonwealth funding, achieving outcomes and providing up-to-date data on performance and spending. The measure includes $261.2 million in 2017-18, which is in addition to the revenue generated from the visa levy. From 2018-19, funding for the measure will be determined by the training fund contribution levy.
The effect of skills formation in this country is a national and economic priority. It will be the difference between whether this country prospers or declines in the future. We are two months into the financial year in which the Skilling Australians Fund should be operating, and we've been told next to nothing about it by the government beyond the sparse detail in the budget papers and other very general statements made by the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Karen Andrews. The states don't know how this is going to operate. The opposition is unaware how this will operate. The government seems totally confused about how this will operate. It can't implement its own budget measures in time. It's another example of what a rabble this government is and how absolutely incompetent this government is.
This should be about providing opportunities for young Australians to get the apprenticeships and traineeships that will be so important to the future of this country. Skills development should be a national priority, yet all we have from this government are some budget measures that seem to be an absolute fairytale. They don't understand how it's going to work. They don't know how much income is going to be achieved. They can't reach any agreement with the states on how this will operate. It's just another example of incompetence and a lack of focus on the key issues by a government that is absolutely focused on its internals. Its members are focused on carving each other up. Within this government, the focus is on making sure that one side is battling the other every day.
The Australian economy is changing fast. As a result, the skills Australians need to get well-paid and secure jobs are changing as well. There are young people here listening into this debate now. Some of them, along with their teachers, must be wondering where they should apply for jobs in the future. What kinds of jobs will they have? Will there be apprenticeships and traineeships available for them? Will there be sufficient funding to train them for a lifetime of skills acquisition in this country? The problem is that neither Senator Birmingham nor Minister Andrews have any answers for the young people in this country, because they don't have a policy that is achievable, they don't have a policy that can be implemented in time, they don't have a policy that focuses on the changing needs of the economy and they don't have a focus on providing jobs for the future. All they are focused on is their internal disputes and the chaos within the Liberal-National coalition.
The changes in the economy won't be easy for many people. Underemployment is at record highs and unemployment is far too common, particularly among younger Australians in the regions and for retrenched workers. Former Senator Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister at the moment—the same guy that has been discovered to have dual citizenship and to be actually a Kiwi—tells people that if they just go to the country they can get a cheap house and a job. If it were only that easy! We know it's not that easy, and all we have are these sound bites and grabs from some of the most senior politicians in this hopeless government who are trying to push what they say is a way forward for the country. They just don't get it.
At the same time, more than one in three employers report difficulty in filling jobs. It's clear some jobs exist; we just need to ensure Australians have the skills to fill them.
Australia needs to invest in education, skills and training more than ever. Yet, since coming to office, the government has cut money from schools and universities, and more than $2.8 billion from TAFE, skills and training. We need to know what the Turnbull government is doing to prepare Australians for a rapidly transforming labour market. The truth is the government can't answer detailed questions about the Skilling Australians Fund. If it could answer the questions, I would not have to be here drawing the attention of the Senate to the failure of Senator Birmingham to respond to legitimate questions on legitimate issues of concern, both to the opposition and to the Australian public, and he wouldn't have had to stand here and say he hasn't answered them on time.
This mob have absolutely no answers. They just develop policy on the run. Should we put the Skilling Australians Fund in the same category as the 15 per cent GST and handing taxation powers to the states? Who knows what they're about. If there is any substance then we need to know what the substance of this policy is. Question No. 912 put to the Minister for Education and Training—three months now since it was asked and two months overdue—is an entirely reasonable question: will the government top up the fund if there is a downturn in the fund due to lower than projected visa approvals? The projections for visas are that they will be in decline. That means the money will not come in as this government has implied in its budget. If the money doesn't come in, what will happen to the training funds for young Australians in this country? It's not a complicated question. The government surely knows the answer to that one.
The problem is that the design of the Skilling Australians Fund is inherently flawed. It appears that revenues for the fund, after the 2017 year, will rely entirely on foreign worker visa fees. What is the government's plan if the visa levy dries up? Does funding for skills development also drop, and will we end up further behind our international competitors when it comes to paying for the skills and bringing the skills forward in this country that will allow us to be internationally competitive? It will not allow us to have international best practice and training if the funding is not there for the training system. It's a particularly pertinent question, given expert analysis from the Australian Population Research Institute released in July, which reports that under the government's new visa rules there will be a dramatic decline in visa applications.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection, in contrast, have partially responded to questions put to them about the fund. To answer a question relating to fluctuations in revenue from visa fees, they went to the Department of Education and Training to seek advice. They got a response which states:
The Department of Education advises that from 2018-19 the Skilling Australians Fund will be equal to the revenue from the levy on employers of foreign workers.
Does this mean that the budget estimates over the forwards are completely fanciful? The government has designed a system of funding for skill formation, a matter of great importance for ensuring the prosperity of our nation, that relies entirely on uncertain revenue. This is the mob who say that they're good economic managers. This is the mob that claim they're so superior in economic management. Yet, they can't answer simple questions about their own policy. They can't answer questions on the financial implications, the training implications and the implications for the future of this country. They are not good economic managers; they are absolute amateurs. They just don't get it. They are so engaged in internal fighting and in attacking each other that the real issues for this country—that is, our future skills capacity, to allow us to be internationally competitive—fall behind their own internal squabbling. It is just not good enough.
We must ensure that there is revenue for training in this country. It can't be assured under this government. No-one, not even the minister, can answer simple questions about this so-called policy that was designed to provide 300,000 apprenticeships and traineeships. It is pie in the sky, like much of what this government does and says. The minister needs to come clean and answer questions about the security of the fund, because if we don't have security for this fund we can't provide funding throughout the economy to make sure that we've got the skills that are needed for the future.
It looks like the Department of Education and Training are willing to answer. Is it the minister who's holding up the response to the questions? We need to know whether the $1.5 billion in the budget for the Skilling Australians Fund is real. Is it a solid commitment or is it a fanciful aspiration? The Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Karen Andrews, said to the media:
I'm very confident that the figures in the budget are going to be met. I haven't been involved in the calculations and projections of the revenue, but that's the money I'm working on for the skills fund.
Well, good luck with that! Here's a minister who hasn't been involved in actually establishing whether the announcement the government made can actually be met with the funds that she says will be delivered. This is a minister that says she hasn't been involved in the calculations or the projections, but that's the money she's going to work on. I would have thought that there would be a responsibility on any minister who's out there saying that these funds will be there to train and educate young Australians to at least have the capacity to know that the funding is guaranteed. There's no guarantee on this funding, and that's probably why it's been months since these questions were asked and why the minister can't answer the question. It was just another gimmick, another thing—that's all it was—for the budget to say that they're doing something on skills.
This is a government that has allowed our TAFE system to decline. The TAFE system is so important in metropolitan, rural and regional Australia. The TAFE system provides the tradespeople for the future, and yet it's running down under this government, under Minister Birmingham. Minister Birmingham's on the record as saying the TAFE system's not his responsibility; it's the states'. But this is the minister for education. This is a minister who should be making sure that the iconic TAFE system in this country is properly funded.
There are real problems with this government. This is a government that doesn't do anything for TAFE. This is a government that doesn't understand the skills needs for the economy. This is a government that is only interested in attacking the trade union movement and making sure that wages continue to decline while costs go up in the economy. This is a government that doesn't understand the future of this economy, how important renewables are compared to the old-fashioned coal-fired power stations that I used to work in, or how we should be advancing the economy through skills and training. It is an absolute rabble of a government, a government that doesn't understand the key issues, a government that just doesn't get it. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
Well, what a day it has been! We have seen the government's attack dog on the Australian trade union movement having to resign—that is, Mr Nigel Hadgkiss, Minister Cash's attack dog. Before that he was former Minister Abetz and former Prime Minister Abbott's attack dog. The government owns Mr Hadgkiss lock, stock and barrel. The minister and those opposite own Mr Hadgkiss's reckless and deliberate breach of the Fair Work Act, which he admitted before the Federal Court yesterday, just as they and Senator Cash own his repeated lying to and misleading of the Senate in estimates and just as they own his contempt for the Senate. More than anyone else, Minister Cash owns the lying, dissembling and unlawfulness of Mr Hadgkiss. Despite repeated warnings about his conduct—
Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Brandis?
As you know, it is highly disorderly to cast reflections or imputations upon another senator. To suggest that Senator Cash, to use Senator Cameron's words, 'owns Mr Hadgkiss's alleged lying and unlawfulness' is a reflection upon Senator Cash, and it must be withdrawn.
Senator Cameron, you just need to clarify whether that was a reflection on the minister. If it was, I'd ask you to withdraw it, or, if it wasn't, to make that clear in your statement.
I'd like to make it clear that this is a reflection on Mr Hadgkiss. Mr Hadgkiss is the officer who is responsible to the minister and who has lied and dissembled to the Senate. That's the position. This is Mr Hadgkiss, who was appointed by this minister, Senator Cash. He was appointed previously by Senator Abetz, but he was appointed by Senator Cash to be an attack dog on the trade union movement. There's nothing more than that. Yet, despite warnings about his conduct as director of the former Fair Work Building and Construction, Minister Cash did not hesitate to appoint this man as Australian Building and Construction Commissioner when the ABCC bill passed this place last year.
It's no secret that I'm a trenchant critic of Mr Hadgkiss. I am critical of his incompetence when he was in that position. I am critical of his bias. I am critical of the strong smell of cronyism that accompanied the termination and appointment of SES officers in his agency. I am critical of his determined refusal to be accountable to the Senate and estimates hearings. I am critical of his repeated dishonesty and dissembling in his answers to questions put on notice to him in estimates. I am critical of his contempt of parliament. I am critical of his contempt for the Australian Public Service values and ethical standards. He was not, in my view, a fit and proper person to hold the office he held.
The minister can't say she wasn't warned about the perils of appointing this man as the ABCC commissioner. Senator Xenophon said in his contribution in the second reading debate on the ABCC bills:
I notice Senator Cameron has been a trenchant critic of the current director of the FWBC, Mr Hadgkiss, but I do have concerns about the way that office has been run, its impartiality and whether it has also adequately pursued employers who have not done the right thing and contravened the current legislative framework. That is an observation I make and I do not believe that it is a unfair one in terms of the conduct of the current director of that inspectorate.
This minister knew the problems with this guy. In the committee stage of the bill, Senator Xenophon went further. He went on to say:
To say that I am unimpressed with Mr Hadgkiss as a regulator would be an incredible understatement. … I have very serious concerns about the way he has been running the FWBC. I have very real concerns about the way he has been conducting himself and the way he has been operating and, who knows, there may well be a need for a separate Senate inquiry in relation to the conduct of Mr Hadgkiss, which I would very gladly support. I for one hope that he retires much, much sooner than later.
A couple of hours later Senator Xenophon said this:
The significance of this amendment is that it gives the right to issue a writ of mandamus against whomever is in the position as ABCC commissioner—and I hope it's still not Mr Hadgkiss—…
That wasn't the only criticism of Mr Hadgkiss there.
This minister wanted the attack dog on the trade union movement to be there and covered up for this officer. She knew for a year that he had recklessly misled, that he had breached the act and did nothing about it. Not only should Mr Hadgkiss have resigned today, but the minister should resign as well. She's responsible for him; she should resign; she should take responsibility for appointing someone who breached the law that he was supposed to make sure was complied with. (Time expired
Well, it's great to see Senator Cameron finally being prepared to come in here and actually criticise somebody for misconduct, but he is criticising the wrong person. Today, 13 September, far from being owned by the government, Justice Flick handed down fines for union lawlessness. If Senator Cameron wishes to come in here and talk about people who have broken the law and consequences, when is he going to start criticising the CFMEU for what Justice Flick has described in the most severe of terms?
At least Mr Hadgkiss has resigned. When is Senator Cameron going to call on the leader to the CFMEU to resign? We have a separation of powers in this country between the judiciary, the parliament and the government, and so Justice Flick in no way can be claimed to be the attack dog of the government. This is what he said:
It is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage any worse conduct than that pursued by the CFMEU. The CFMEU assumes a prominent role in the industrial affairs of this country and has consistently exhibited a contempt for compliance with the law.
… … …
… the CFMEU has long demonstrated by its conduct that it pays but little regard to compliance with the law and indeed has repeatedly sought to place itself above the law.
… … …
It is difficult to perceive how such conduct can be regarded as in the best interests of the bulk of its members and the workers it supposedly represents. Such conduct may promote the CFMEU as a “militant” union. But the constraints imposed by the law apply to all – including the CFMEU.
Now, that's not the minister and that's not somebody appointed to a commission; that's a judge who has made that comment in handing down record penalties to the CFMEU—to the CFMEU nationally, $1.326 million and to the CFMEU in New South Wales, $956,000 in fines. In addition to issuing those unprecedented penalties, Justice Flick also referred union officials Brian Parker, Luke Collier, Robert Kera and Tony Sloane to the Director of Public Prosecutions for possible criminal prosecution for allegedly giving false testimony during the proceedings.
We have here a case of great hypocrisy, where Senator Cameron stands up and criticises one individual who, by all accounts—it now appears to be a matter of record—broke the law, has been found guilty and, accordingly, has resigned. Those are the consequences of his action and the judgement of those opposite. But what Senator Cameron and colleagues on the other side of this place are not prepared to do is to come out and criticise the conduct of the CFMEU.
In his judgement today, Justice Flick found that over a long period of time they have consistently sought to place themselves above the law and have broken the law, and have been received with the most significant fines in Australia's history. Yet, do we hear a single word from those opposite, who are owned by the union movement in this country, to condemn, in any terms—let alone the strong terms that Senator Cameron has just used now about Mr Hadgkiss—the conduct of the CFMEU? It shows the rank hypocrisy of the Labor Party. They are totally owned by the union movement. If they have any decency and any respect for the rule of law in this country, they should come out and condemn, in at least as strong terms, the conduct of the CFMEU, nationally and in New South Wales and, as found in this case just handed down today, because of their actions on the site in Sydney.
I want to also take note that we had no answers from ministers to questions from Labor senators. If you had hibernated for a few years and woke up now, you wouldn't believe the nonsense argument we are having in this country, the lack of inaction. Who would have thought Australia, the lucky country, would have one of the most ridiculous, soulless, gutless positions about our energy supply. We are a nation that is blessed with gas, coal, minerals, energy and fuel, and yet we have one of the lamest governments that we have ever had in this space.
I want to make one thing very clear—and I speak as Senator Glenn Sterle from WA, myself: I'm not anti-coal. But I have to cop abuse all the time because the Greens have got into this spin about how evil and dirty and filthy coal is. They don't care about the jobs that come off the end of it. We all agree we have to do something to lower the temperature of the planet because it's heating, and we have to do something to reduce man-made emissions. No-one is arguing about that. But what a ridiculous position we find ourselves in now. In fact, if you were a visitor to this country, you would wonder how we ever got out of the Dark Ages, out of the caves—for crying out loud.
While the Greens are attacking coal and fossil fuels, they don't mind the air-conditioned Commonwealth cars that bring them here each morning or having the heaters on at this time of year. I don't see too many of them riding a pushbike from their home states to Canberra. They all enjoy the luxury of a Qantas or a Virgin flight. Guess what? That burns a fossil fuel too. I can't believe I'm taking note of this sort of nonsense.
To get to the crux of the matter, I opened the front page of one of today's papers and found that a green group have been successful in the courts and possibly halted the production of coal from the Springvale mine. I don't even know where the Springvale mine is; I have never been there. But I do know it employs 600 people. I do know that the Mount Piper power station is one of newer coal-fired power stations—and I know because I read the paper, and correct me if I'm wrong—and that it supplies energy to 15 per cent of New South Wales, to one million people. I do know the Springvale mine is their only supplier of coal. I do know it is a ridiculous situation that this judge has sided with the green group to possibly put them all out of the business. I know this isn't federal, but it's tied in with the same debate, and the lack of action in the federal scene is compounding it and making it worse.
I see that the manager is trying to get something from the New South Wales government. Hopefully, there is some legislation that can override the stupidity that's gone through the court with this announcement about shutting down the coal supply. But this is the best that the New South Wales energy minister can say—and I am going to quote; I don't read speeches too often but I want to get it right:
NSW Energy Minister Don Harwin would not say what action was available to the government in the event of an adverse decision and said the government was waiting the outcome of the court hearings.
God almighty, how wishy-washy is that!
But the true problem is that that side of parliament has an internal intifada between former Prime Minister Mr Abbott and the now Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull. I heard a whisper that this week is the two-year anniversary of the election of Mr Turnbull since rolling Mr Abbott. I didn't hear the corks popping and didn't see the streamers flying out of the building. I can understand why. I would be a bit embarrassed. We were just as embarrassed when we were in government. The only good thing about our situation is they both left parliament and now we can get on business. You guys have to start standing up. For crying out loud, you know you need some leadership. You are the government. We can't be threatened with blackouts in the lucky country. You use this nonsense argument against South Australia: that it's South Australia's problem. We'll see how smart everyone is when we get to summer and, all of a sudden, the air-conditioners and freezers can't come on and all the food is thrown out.
In this day and age, are we really serious that we're proud of us as a nation when we can't even get any leadership to get our energy sources correct? God Almighty! I remember looking at a map on the wall of Shell when I was a removalist back in the seventies. I said to the person at Shell, 'What are all the coloured dots around the country?' I was only about 17. He said, 'They're all our uncapped wells. We are rich with oil and rich with fuel.' And here we are in the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in. We don't even know what the hell the— (Time expired)
First of all, I would like to commend Senator Sterle for his comments on the importance of coal as an energy mix here in Australia and the importance of it to our state of Western Australia and also to the many thousands of workers in that industry. But I would now like to take note of the answers to questions on industrial relations by the Minister for Employment. Listening to Senator Cameron, I just could not help but think it was, again, the height of hypocrisy from Senator Cameron. The unions he is still defending talk about the big end of town, but they are now the big end of town. They get hundreds of millions of dollars from industry super funds, and I'm almost certain that most people who contribute to industry funds do not realise how much of their money goes through to unions. In fact, union membership is declining so much. I understand there is only 10 per cent membership in private companies. So the unions really don't need their members anymore for their financial future, because they're getting far more money annually from super funds. There is a compounding tragedy. We hear how they're using the money. I'm certain that neither union members nor super fund contributors to industry funds realise where some of the funds are being used—to actually pay the fines, I suspect, of those who breach the law and are repeatedly fined for misconduct and unlawful behaviour. I am certain that most, if not all, union members and super fund contributors would be aghast at that.
Let's look at the latest performance. What we heard today is that the CFMEU—a serial offender—has been handed unprecedented penalties for its concerted campaign of industrial lawlessness at Barangaroo. The CFMEU national branch, the New South Wales branch and multiple union CFMEU officials have been ordered by the courts to pay $2.4 million in fines. I ask Australian union members of the CFMEU, in particular, and any of the contributing super funds: who is actually paying these fines? I think we all know what the answer to that is. The Minister for Employment, Senator Michaelia Cash, said that the lawless industrial strikes involved over a thousand workers and again demonstrates the utter disregard that the CFMEU, in particular, has for the law.
It was very interesting to read Justice Flick's judgement today because it highlights the hypocrisy of those opposite and particularly those who keep defending and supporting the actions of the CFMEU. This is what Justice Flick found today. He said:
It is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage any worse conduct than that pursued by the CFMEU ...
He went on to say:
The CFMEU assumes a prominent role in the industrial affairs of this country and has consistently exhibited a contempt for compliance with the law.
Again, that is at the expense of their members. The CFMEU, he went on to say:
… has long demonstrated by its conduct that it pays but little regard to compliance with the law and indeed has repeatedly sought to place itself above the law.
No wonder, when they have access to their members' fees to pay their fines and also, quite possibly, the money from those who contribute to industry super funds. He went on to say:
It is difficult to perceive how such conduct can be regarded as in the best interests of the bulk of its members and the workers it supposedly represents.
That's not us on this side of the chamber saying that; it is Justice Flick. He also said:
Such conduct may promote the CFMEU as a "militant" union. But the constraints imposed by the law apply to all – including the CFMEU—
who clearly have not got the message yet.
In addition to issuing unprecedented penalties, Justice Flick also referred union officials Brian Parker and Luke Collier—who we've heard of many times in this chamber, and who have been defended by Senator Cameron over and over again—to the DPP for possible criminal prosecution for allegedly giving false testimony during the proceedings. What a surprise—a CFMEU member giving false testimony during proceedings! There's a shocker! Justice Flick also ordered the CFMEU to pay for prominent advertising in Sydney's major newspapers to ensure that the public and, importantly, CFMEU members are made aware of the illegal actions, and the financial consequences for them. (Time expired)
I rise to take note of answers to questions as outlined earlier. Before I disagree with effectively everything that Senator Reynolds just said, I want to acknowledge the fantastic event that she put together for the launching of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Books and Writers group last night. It was an excellent event, and she should be congratulated for that initiative. But I digress.
I want to start by talking about the ridiculousness of the answers, and the situation that has now been outlined as it relates to the questions that were asked to Senator Brandis regarding electricity. To come to this chamber and attempt to brag about a cup of tea shows how pathetically weak, how pathetically ridiculous, this government's situation has become as it relates to skyrocketing energy prices. Here are the facts. For those of us living in Sydney, since this government was elected power prices have increased by $1,000. This government did nothing when we saw, down in Victoria, the closure of Hazelwood. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity—it was a completely tragic set of circumstances, but, because of the work we do in the Senate committee process, I had the opportunity—to visit Morwell, talk to some of the workers who were directly affected and to hear from them what had gone on. The government did nothing. The government didn't raise a finger, didn't raise a concern, just washed their hands clean of it.
Now what we're seeing is a power crisis engulfing this country and the government again doing all they do when they end up falling into these desperate and pathetic situations, and that is blame Labor, blame someone else, blame the Greens, blame ideology, blame this, blame that. Here is the reality. There is only one group here who are allowing ideology to drive them, and that is the Liberal-National parties. They're allowing that to happen because of their inability to sort out their own internal ideological mess as it relates to this issue. The only strategy they have available to them is to try to attack others, because they themselves can't even work out where they stand on these issues. I actually give credit to Senator Malcolm Roberts, who at least has been incredibly consistent in his view—a view that I don't agree with. But the government itself is all over the shop. When you talk to people from industry, when you talk to people who actually have to relate to this, they say the biggest problem they have now is a lack of certainty. The biggest problem for businesses making investment decisions is a lack of certainty, and this government has done nothing but feed that level of uncertainty. What we've seen in the past week and a half is an obscenely ridiculous attack on the CEO of AGL. How does that help? How is that going to help? How is that the objective? When we have an Attorney-General representing the Prime Minister who cannot answer basic questions about what's happening with power prices 24 hours after they were initially asked, we have to ask ourselves: How serious is this government when it comes to addressing these concerns? How serious is this government when it comes to addressing these problems? The reality is that it's not serious at all. No, what we have are cups of coffee. What we have are letters being mailed out to people. That is not providing any sense of certainty or any sense of actual change. All we have are these ridiculously small announceables so the government can pretend, can put on some kind of facade, that it's actually doing something about this issue, when the reality is that time and time again it's failed.
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 Hanson-Young today relating to energy policy.
I rise to speak in relation to the answers given to my questions to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, representing the Prime Minister. They went, of course, to the issue of the government's new-found obsession with socialising the coal industry, spending billions in taxpayer money to prop up a failed and floundering industry and keep coal burning longer, making our climate more dangerous, and, indeed, pushing up electricity prices rather than pushing them down. And this comes today, when we've heard that the government is now adopting a dirty energy target rather than a clean energy target. Including coal in this energy target will do nothing to ensure the electricity grid is stable and energy is reliable and nothing to push down prices.
The government are relying on a huge falsehood. The Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Energy have been carrying on for the last week about the report by AEMO, the energy market operator. The Prime Minister and energy minister have suggested that in this report, which they do every year, AEMO argued the Liddell coal-fired power station needed to stay open; otherwise there would be an energy crisis. Of course, that wasn't true. The Prime Minister and the energy minister are wilfully deceiving the public, wilfully deceiving the parliament and carrying on with a huge lie and falsehood about what this report said, because it never said that. In fact, what it did say was that there are a number of things that could be put in place, and need to be put in place, through a proper plan for dealing with the energy transition—like demand management, ensuring we have proper settings for battery storage and, of course, certainty for the energy industry. One of the key drivers of the current crisis is the government's inability to get their heads out of the sand and start focusing on giving the industry certainty with a proper energy plan and a price on carbon.
We know that the government think distorting facts is the only way they can win this debate, because renewable energy, of course, is immensely popular amongst the Australian population. People know that if it's done well—if the government gets out of the way and stops propping up coal and spending billions in taxpayer money subsidising the coal industry—renewable energy, battery storage and demand management systems can produce cheaper electricity and help save the planet on the way through.
We heard this morning from the former head of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Oliver Yates, speaking directly to this point: that the politicisation of this issue by this government is driving electricity prices up, driving inaction on climate change and making it harder for the industry to get on with delivering energy certainty and reliability. He said that the AEMO report that government is relying on never said that we were going to end up with a critical crisis and that we would run out of power in 2022—that it was never said, despite what the Prime Minister and the energy minister have been out peddling and trying to make people believe for the last week. They're spreading misinformation, wilfully deceiving and making a mockery of what should be a very, very important government report and document that could give a blueprint for how we move forward in this place.
This is all because this government is absolutely obsessed with propping up coal. This new dirty energy target will push electricity prices through the roof and make reliability for households and businesses much harder. We know this because the experts are telling us. The market operator, the CSIRO, AGL and all of the energy companies are crying out for certainty and a proper plan, and all we get from this government are lectures about how wonderful coal is. This government has its head in the sand, and it is time that it started speaking the truth, rather than continuing with the lies.
Question agreed to.
Senator Xenophon, did you still wish to seek an explanation from the minister?
Yes, I do. Pursuant to the order of the Senate, I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry for an explanation as to why documents relating to the future frigate program have not been tabled in response to the order for production of the documents, agreed to by the Senate on 5 September 2017.
In responding to Senator Xenophon's request for an explanation, there are some very important observations that I want to place on the record this afternoon. I want to be very careful in making those observations, because what we are talking about here today—and what Senator Xenophon and his colleague Senator Carr have raised with the Senate by way of this order for production of documents—is a $35 billion active tender in relation to the procurement of future frigates for the Royal Australian Navy.
Before I make specific comments on the government's public interest immunity claim, which relates to order 449, I want to make some general observations. The future frigate RFT was issued to three companies selected by the government, based on their significant world-class experience as both ship designers and builders. The selection of these companies was based on analysis undertaken by the RAND Corporation, and the decision was made well in advance of the RFT. This is public information. It is well known, and it has been discussed in a number of fora, not least of which includes the Senate Economic References Committee and other parliamentary fora.
The businesses, ASC and Austal, referred to in the order to produce documents, are well known to the three tenderers. The three tenderers are not precluded from engaging with ASC and Austal. The future frigate tenderers are all highly experienced, world-class ship designers and builders, and they will bring, whomever is chosen, this expertise to bear in using and developing the existing shipbuilding workforce in Adelaide. Indeed, they have all explicitly said they will be utilising the existing workforce in Adelaide. I placed a number of their quotations on that matter on the Hansard record in the chamber earlier in the week.
The competitive process seeks for the three tenderers to maximise the use of the Australian workforce. They are best placed to determine how to engage and utilise the shipbuilding workforce, including the resources of ASC and Austal. However, to mandate that the successful tenderer use a particular shipbuilder or workforce would significantly undermine a key advantage of the prime contractor model, which is key to this procurement process, which is to provide a single point of responsibility. Similarly, to allow the successful tenderer to subcontract significant aspects of the work to a third party would ultimately mean that the Australian shipbuilding industry wouldn't obtain the benefit of the world-class experience, expertise and know-how of the successful tenderer. It is also vital to ensure that we avoid the issues associated with separating design and build responsibilities. We've been down that road before.
The future frigates are the next generation of naval surface vessels and a critical component of the government's commitment to a continuous build of naval ships in Australia. The government are absolutely committed, in everything that we have done, to maximising Australian industry opportunities and participation. This project will contribute substantially to building a sustainable Australian shipbuilding workforce. One of the primary goals is to be able to generate a sovereign capability to design and build ships into the future. Actions such as this, which could cause delays to the SEA5000 procurement—the name of the project—could jeopardise this critical component of the government's shipbuilding strategy, including the ability to ultimately develop a sovereign design and build capability.
Now I turn to the public interest immunity aspects of the resolution. Officials from the Department of Defence have already briefly outlined to the Senate Economic References Committee that there is—one would have thought self-evidently and quite obviously—a need to maintain confidentiality during tender evaluations and negotiations, a need to observe all probity requirements. Release of tender information and related information at this time in the process of an active tender could adversely affect Defence's ability to negotiate a contract that protects the interests of the Commonwealth and achieves best value for money. Surely that is a priority for the Senate, a priority for Senator Xenophon and a priority for Senator Carr.
I want to specifically address each part of the order for the production of documents—general business notice of motion No. 449—that was agreed to last week on 5 September. Paragraph (2)(a) refers to:
Gateway Review briefs and decisions in relation to the Future Frigate project to the extent that those briefs and decisions go to Australian Industry Capability, the partnering or use of Australian shipyards, and how Techport and other Australian facilities might be used in the program …
In relation to the request for gateway review materials, I'm advised—and I also assume—that this most likely relates to what are known as 'gate reviews', which are routinely undertaken with major projects within Defence. Defence conducts a very large number of internal reviews and senior Defence committee reviews as part of its decision-making processes. Of course it does. Many of those internal reviews are classified. Many of them form part of cabinet preparation documentation.
Paragraphs (2)(b), (2)(c) and (2)(d) relate to correspondence between Defence and ASC, Defence and Austal, and Defence and the three prospective design partners in response to the announcement that Australian shipbuilders Austal and ASC would partner to win the contract to build the $35 billion future frigates in Adelaide. I say in relation to paragraphs (2)(b) and (2)(c) that this material contains discussions of an ongoing, active procurement—a tender process—that may have the potential to prejudice the integrity of the future frigate procurement. Paragraph (2)(d) relates to discussions of an ongoing procurement that may also have the potential to prejudice the integrity of the procurement process that is currently underway. Paragraph (2)(e) states:
any other documentation held by the Future Frigate project that discusses Australian Industry Capability, the partnering or use of Australian shipyards, and how Techport and other Australian facilities might be used in the program.
That part of the order is particularly concerning. It refers to such a broad range of documents:
Any other documentation held by the Future Frigate Project that discusses Australian industry capability, the partnering or use of Australian shipyards and how Techport and other Australian facilities might be used in the program.
Effectively, it is the view of Defence and legal advisers that that order would require the government to release parts of the tender responses themselves part way through an active tender—that is, those parts of the tenderers' submitted responses that pertain to Australian industry capability and the partnering or use of Australian shipyards, all of which are 'held by the future frigate project'. The release of that sort of sensitive material would not only adversely affect the tenderers but undermine the integrity of the entire procurement process. Moreover, the information that is requested—that is, any other documentation held by the future frigate project—would include documents that contain sensitive information with regard to Defence's negotiating position in relation to a variety of issues, including Australian industry capability, a negotiating position of the Commonwealth government in respect of any future contract. Frankly, it is beyond belief that a sensible person in this place would support the government being required to table our negotiating strategy part way through a tender process—unless the outcome you seek to achieve is actually to delay the project. I remain to be persuaded.
Defence has also advised the government that substantial public commentary on the Australian industry capability and continuous naval shipbuilding aspects of the RFT content could also affect commercial arrangements that are able to be achieved during negotiations with any successful tenderer. I understand a number of these issues were discussed in the context of the hearing last Friday.
I want to make a few observations, if I may, in response to the claims made to reject public interest immunity in the motion itself. They are set out further down the motion. As I understand it, we have claims from Senator Xenophon that, because only documents that have not been 'marked with national security markings' were requested, somehow a claim by the government for public interest immunity is not valid. Let me be very clear about this: a derailed procurement process of the magnitude of a $35 billion future frigate program would damage Australia's national security, our defence and our international relations. That's exactly what the release of sensitive material relating to the tender would do, because it would adversely affect the tenderers, it would adversely affect the government's position and it would jeopardise the current tender process.
Let me speak about the national security implications. From the perspective of Australia's security and the future challenges that we need to be prepared for, we're intimately tied to developments in both our regional environment and our global environment. As a result of military modernisation in our region, we have a large number of regional forces who'll be able to operate at much greater range and with more precision, especially in the maritime and air environments that are supported by more advanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance networks. To respond to those developments, from Australia's perspective, we have to increasingly develop capabilities which can protect our forces when they're deployed across a large geographic area. The future frigate program is a key enabler of Defence's military modernisation program.
Defence has projected our capability needs to meet future emerging threats and to respond to regional and global modernisation. An action of this nature, which has the potential to prejudice, delay or derail the acquisition of a vital capability, does have a significant effect on Defence's ability to meet its national security goals and to defend our national interests. If this material, particularly part of the tenderers' responses, were to be made public, why would these tenderers or any future international tenderers have confidence in Australia's procurement systems and processes? How do you suggest that Defence—or, for that matter, any other major government agency—would be able to attract world-class designers and builders for significant projects of national importance?
The integrity of our procurement system is important to the engagement of international expertise, which assists us in delivering vital military capability now and in the future. If Defence can't draw on international expertise, it's ultimately Australian industry that will suffer from the loss of opportunity to foster the development of a wide range of skills that will not only directly support the construction of the future frigate program but will also contribute to the creation and the sustainment of a continuous, sovereign shipbuilding industry in Australia, which is the government's objective.
Releasing tender information at this time could also adversely affect Defence's ability to negotiate a contract that protects the interests of the Commonwealth and achieves the best value for money for Australian taxpayers. Frankly, what this order of the Senate would have us do is to damage the future frigate tender process, to allow it to be derailed, and to damage our professional reputation internationally. That's why the government has claimed public interest immunity. That's why the release of the documents would have the potential to damage our national security and defence interests and our international relations. I think, in a resolution of this nature, an order of this nature, it is very important for those who have supported the resolution and the order to consider the scale and the complexity of such an important tender process, for a tender that is currently active. But it would seem to the observer that the pursuit of these matters when the government has responded as to why we are not able to provide the information, is largely aimed at delaying the future frigate program, and delaying the thousands of jobs in South Australia and around the nation that will come with it.
To sum up, in relation to order 449, it is my contention, on behalf of the Minister for Defence Industry—that the release of this sensitive material would adversely affect the tenderers and would also jeopardise the current tender process. Even if the procurement could be salvaged from a probity perspective, it would result in a significant cost to the Commonwealth, a significant cost to the tenderers and a significant delay in the delivery of the frigates. A derailed procurement process of this magnitude would, as I have said, damage Australia's national security, and our defence and international relations. We as a government are not prepared to risk a $35 billion project in this way. We are not prepared to risk the thousands of Australian jobs that will come with it.
It would perhaps be remiss of me not to make a couple of observations about the history of naval procurement in Australia in recent years. For example, it would be remiss of me not to point out that, in the period between 2007 and 2013, those who sit opposite did nothing to commission a single naval vessel from an Australian shipyard—from any shipyard—for those six years. Nothing. They allowed the Australian naval shipbuilding industry to enter a downward spiral by not supporting it with the order book that was necessary for it to retain its workforce and invest in the future. And now they want to compromise this government's position. Those who sit opposite us now and criticise the government for commissioning 12 future submarines, nine future frigates and 12 offshore patrol vessels, and for currently engaging in a build of over 20 Pacific patrol boats, all to be built in Australia, with an Australian shipbuilding workforce, as part of a sovereign, continuous naval shipbuilding commitment—those who sit opposite and criticise that have a very warped sense of priorities.
In fact, it's worth noting for the record—Senator Carr and I have been in this chamber together for a very long time—that Senator Carr sat over here for four years in the Rudd cabinet as the minister for industry—and did what, exactly, to support the Australian naval shipbuilding industry?
If I recall, Senator Carr also served as Minister for Defence Materiel for a short period in 2011 and 2012. And did what, exactly? Nothing. The Labor government did nothing. That is the complete opposite of what this government is doing.
We are establishing a sustainable, long-term sovereign naval shipbuilding industry that will learn from the best in the world while we build on our own world-class existing naval shipbuilding workforce. We are getting on with the job of delivering the capability that our Navy needs and building the sovereign industry that we need to support that. We are the ones who have made the decisions that are necessary to create at least 5,200 direct jobs in Australia's naval shipbuilding industry by the mid-2020s in this country, with another 10,000 created across the supply chain. This is a threefold increase on the workforce we already have.
We have moved to address the mess that those opposite left us by bringing forward the construction of naval vessels and implementing a continuous naval shipbuilding program. We will see the offshore patrol vessels commence in South Australia in 2018. We will see, without it being derailed, the commencement of the future frigate program in 2020. We have commenced upgrading the Osborne shipyard in Adelaide with an over $500 million investment, which will support our continuous naval shipbuilding plan for decades to come and will support a potential export industry as well. We have released a request for tender to establish a naval shipbuilding college to ensure that we have a future workforce with the skills it needs to deliver on this program. We have released a comprehensive naval shipbuilding plan which sets out our strategy for a sovereign continuous naval shipbuilding industry, which supports our 2016 defence white paper. All consistent, all proactive, all front-foot—the exact opposite of those opposite. We have set in train a process that means each of the three shipbuilders who are participating in our request for tender is conducting extensive consultation with Australian industry to develop a sovereign supply chain in this country, creating more Australian jobs and investment. Every single thing that we have done demonstrates our commitment to creating a sovereign naval shipbuilding industry in Australia. Every single thing that Labor didn't do let the industry die.
The government is not able to provide the sensitive documentation that relates to the future frigate program, for the reasons that I have set out, because to do so would adversely affect the tender process and the tenderers and would potentially derail the entire thing. I don't understand why the only people who seem to want to jeopardise that tender process—and to delay the future frigate program—are the Labor Party and Senator Xenophon. They apparently want to cause havoc with our international reputation, with our national security. They want to deny, apparently, the thousands of shipbuilders in Adelaide the chance of a job. They want to deny the many thousands of workers in SMEs across the country additional future work. This government won't risk this $35 billion project and the thousands of jobs that come with it. We just won't.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the explanation.
I fundamentally repudiate what the minister said at the conclusion of her speech. This is about ensuring accountability, about transparency, about making sure we maximise Australian industry involvement and making sure that our national security and sovereignty are not in any way compromised. To say that I, and Senator Carr and others, are somehow trying to jeopardise this program—on the contrary, we are trying to ensure its utmost success. The matter we're dealing with today is a serious national security and sovereignty matter involving $35 billion of public expenditure. I'll speak to this, but, before I move to my substantive concern, I wish to spell out to the minister my reservations in respect of the public interest immunity claim that she has made in relation to the tender and other documents that are subject to the order.
As a starting point in this discussion, government should be transparent in their policies—in the execution of their policies and in the way in which they spend taxpayers' money. Consistent with the need to be transparent, the Commonwealth Procurement Rules normally require tenderers to be published on AusTender, which any Australian citizen can gain access to. When I say 'normally', I'm talking about the default procurement method, being open tender. The minister makes a claim that tabling tender documents will affect the probity and integrity of a tender. That claim cannot stand, in my view. If that were the case, then all open tenders would be compromised. The Commonwealth runs tenders with the tender documents public all the time.
The future frigate tender released on 30 March 2017 was a limited tender; I acknowledge that. A limited tender occurs when an agency approaches only a limited number of suppliers. There is nothing in the Commonwealth Procurement Rules that prevent limited tenders being published. Indeed, the Commonwealth Procurement Rules certainly permit limited tender documents being published. Again, I do not believe that is a credible claim by the minister. The fact that all three designers have access to the tender documents—as does Defence—means that the release of the tender documents cannot disrupt the process. It simply lets the public see what the designers already have—not the responses, but what the designers have been given.
The minister also makes a claim that release of the documents relating to industry will cause damage to Australia's international relations. It beggars belief that details of how Australian industry will be used, how ASC might be used and how facilities at Techport might be used could in some way affect international relations. I've sought the same details from Defence under FOI. After consideration by officials, no claim of harm to international relations has been advanced by the department. Again, that is a claim that is not credible.
Finally, the minister makes a claim that release of the documents will harm national security. The order for production of documents only sought unclassified information which, by definition, cannot harm national security if released. The minister made a claim about an unclassified future frigate document in the chamber on 16 July that 'sensitive tender information has been released'. The minister needs to understand that in this case we're talking about unclassified documents. 'Unclassified' means exactly that: unclassified are not harmful to national security. It may be embarrassing, but it is not harmful to national security. So I think that there is a duty for these documents to be tabled—and I again urge the minister to table the documents.
I now move to the more substantive issue of the future frigate program and why it is most reasonable for the Senate to require examination of the program. What we have learnt of the government's plans, through the brave actions of a whistleblower, who only has regard to the proper implementation of sovereign continuous naval shipbuilding program, is, I believe, scandalous. Two Australian naval shipyards, ASC and Austal, have been locked out of any leadership and management role of Australia's $35 billion future frigate program.
When it comes to ASC and Austal, let's put this on record: ASC are a world-class shipbuilding operation. They've been building some of the most complex steel-hulled surface combatants in the world. They have deployed significant expertise and capability, with robust skills in engineering, planning, supply chain manufacturing, tests and activation. The company did have some problems with the first air warfare destroyer. That is not surprising. The AWD build was commenced from a greenfield site. However, learning from the experience, ASC have come ahead in leaps and bounds. From testimony at May estimates, ship 2 was 89 per cent complete and was 40 per cent less expensive for ASC's scope of work than ship 1. Ship 3 was over 50 per cent complete and was travelling at 38 per cent less expensive than ship 2.
ASC have been recently benchmarked by Booz Allan Hamilton and are approaching worldwide benchmarks on major elements of their shipbuilding value stream. The European shipbuilding industry took 100 years to get to that point. The American shipbuilding industry has taken 50 years to get to that point. In this regard, ASC's achievements are nothing short of remarkable. It's a credit to the management at ASC, the workforce and the supply chain. ASC Shipbuilding are continuing to deliver value to the Commonwealth and for the wider Australian industry and economy.
Austal are the largest aluminium shipbuilder in the world. Last year, Austal delivered 10 ships all around the world. They have 14 other ships in construction right now. Some of these ships are as big as, and bigger than, the ships being proposed by the Navy for its future frigate program. In the United States, Austal are the only company since American independence that has ever designed and built ships for the United States Navy that is not a US based company. In fact, they design and build two classes of ships for the United States Navy. No-one else in the world has ever done that, whether they be British, Spanish or Italian.
So, I just don't get it. We have these two experienced, efficient and highly regarded naval shipbuilders in this country, and yet the government has decided specifically that the management and supervision of the $35 billion future frigate program is to be given to either BAE of the UK, Fincantieri of Italy or Navantia, in Spain. I believe it shows a totally unwarranted lack of confidence in Australia's industrial capacity and is, frankly, just not right. That's not what the tender says, but we found out on Friday that Defence doesn't seem to know what `sovereign' means. At Friday's economics committee hearing into the future of Australia's naval shipbuilding, Defence, in response to a question from Senator Carr, said:
Later on this year the government will be releasing its defence industrial capability plan, which includes the Sovereign Industrial Capabilities requirement, in which the government will make some choices about what sovereignty means in terms of a sovereign Australian company. I am not in a position to give you an answer on that until such time as the government has had a chance to consider advice from the department and make some choices about that.
The reality is that foreigners will take the lead and control the future frigate program in terms of filling the key management positions, determining Australian industry involvement, controlling the intellectual property and determining the shipyards' strategic direction. For instance, will Australia export from the Australian yards? I've got no problems with foreigners contributing to this program, their input is both necessary and welcome, but this is an Australian naval shipbuilding program and Australians must be at the helm.
One of the four core strategic industry policy goals mentioned in the Naval Shipbuilding Plan is to 'promote a highly resilient, sustainable, and innovative industry through defence exports, growth and employment'. This is a critically important aim point. European and US defence industries are dedicated to this aim. In Europe, on average, 50 per cent of their defence industry is dedicated to exports. In Italy, which has a defence procurement budget very similar in size to Australia's, 80 per cent of their industry is dedicated to exports. This is only achievable because they have a strong sovereign local capability. Apart from a strong sovereign local capability, it is a critical pre-condition for defence exporting to have the imprimatur of the home government.
When the CEO of Austal travels, he is often asked, as came out last Friday, 'What is the credibility of Austal to build these ships?' He says two things to them. One is, 'I sell ships to the United States Navy that meet the full and exacting demands of the United States government.' The other is, 'I build and design ships for the Australian government that meet Australian demands as well.' In many countries that's as big a tick as you can possibly give. Austal are currently building our Navy's Pacific patrol boats for the Commonwealth. They are, it now turns out, getting interest from Hong Kong. In a recent visit to Hong Kong, representatives told Austal:
If it's designed in Australia under the guise of the Australian government, if it's accepted by the Australian neighbours … then for us in Hong Kong that is acceptable.
Having procurement backing from the Australian government through the Australian shipbuilders gives Austal the imprimatur and confidence to promote export opportunities overseas.
Exports create many more jobs for Australians than the Royal Australian Navy programs alone. These programs are the bedrock on which the industry will continue to build. Austal has created thousands of jobs, and thousands of apprentices have gone through Austal over the last 30 years—not based on Australian programs, which have been a relatively small part of their business, but based on their industrial success in exports overseas. At the committee hearing last Friday I asked Austal:
What is at stake here in terms of sovereign shipbuilding capability, having the ability to be the primes, unlike the RFT, which basically shuts you and ASC out? You're saying that what is at stake here are literally thousands of additional Australian jobs in this country.
Their answer was between 8,000 and 10,000 jobs. History shows we can do this. The Navy's Fremantle class patrol boats, its Durance class supply ships, the Antarctic Division's icebreaker—Aurora Australisthe Anzac class frigates, the Armidale class patrol boats, the Collins class submarines and the air warfare destroyers were all built in Australia by Australian companies as primes. I'm concerned that we're casting aside that history—our supply ships build has been exported to Spain; our icebreaker is being built offshore in Romania; our Future Submarines are being built by a French company, albeit here; and our future frigates will be built by a British, an Italian or a Spanish company. That offshoring, in terms of the primes, is very concerning. This is not acceptable. We are supposed to be building a world-class sovereign shipbuilding base which will support thousands of long-term, high-quality jobs directly and thousands more through the supply chain. More importantly, we are supposed to be building an industry base that supports our sailors at sea in times of peace or conflict.
From an Australian industry perspective, this decision will see the two local shipbuilders placed in the shadows of new invitee foreign shipyards. I fear that ASC will wither away as a result. Austal may survive, but certainly it will not thrive as much as it could have. Strategically this is a big deal. This is about $35 billion dollars of taxpayer expenditure, it is about national security, our sovereignty, and it is about an extra 8,000 to 10,000 Australian jobs. We have not asked the minister to table the response of BAE Systems, or Fincantieri or Navantia. We are simply asking the government to be transparent as to how the program will be managed and how sovereign capability will be achieved. There is an urgent need for Defence Industry Minister Pyne and the federal government to re-initiate the future frigate tender to permit Australian shipyards to take the lead role in the ship build. The future frigate tender is fundamentally flawed in its current form. I believe it is strategically inept, and it compromises our sovereign capability. It is certainly not Australian to lock out our own industry from taking a lead role in what is being claimed to be an Australian sovereign program.
I thank the minister for her detailed response and I'd like to place on the record a couple of points in response. Firstly, let me deal once again with Labor's record on shipbuilding. The minister asked what I had done during the period when Labor was in office. I was part of a government that kept our shipbuilding yards absolutely full. A number of yards that are currently closed were at full capacity. Williamstown in Victoria was at full capacity. A number of yards across the eastern shores of this country were full. That is absolutely the case, Minister.
While you can well point to your discovery of the importance of Australian shipbuilding very late in the piece—and we'll come to that in a moment—let me point to the specific repudiation that needs to be made again and again. The Labor Party is not about derailing a naval tender worth $35 billion, nor are we seeking to produce an outcome for a particular preferred bidder, whether that be any one of the three foreign limited invitees or, for that matter, one of the Australian shipyards—Austal or the ASC—or to endanger in any way Australia's national security. What I think needs to be understood here is that the government is seeking to wrap itself in the flag to avoid accountability for a failure of public administration. The government has once again fallen victim to a department that travels on its own merry way, establishing its objectives irrespective of what government wants and in a manner which we have seen time and time again throughout the history of this Commonwealth. What we're seeing here—and I think the evidence is mounting through the work of this Senate committee—is an extraordinary gap between what the government says it's doing and what actually happens. Frankly, an important role for this parliament is to appreciate the difference between the stated policy of the government and the actual administration.
In regard to the minister's proposition that the Senate asked for the disclosure of the bidders' particular commercial-in-confidence details, that's just not true. You're seeking to assert that proposition, but that is not what this return to order actually asked for. If the government thinks that, how are you going to be able to produce the capability documents later this year, which the public servants have said they will be able to produce? They can't tell us at the moment what the word 'sovereignty' actually means. They can't tell us what the policy objective actually says at this time, because the government hasn't signed off on it. However, they're enacting a series of policy decisions, which suggests to me that in their mind they have clear policy preferences.
I've outlined the approach that was taken through the committee process, but the need for a sovereign capability with regard to naval shipbuilding is absolutely critical. It goes to the issue of this country being able to not just design its own naval vessels but build them, sustain them and export them. To do that, we have to make sure we have the skills in this country across all of those areas. We have to be able to carry out those capabilities in the good times and the bad.
My concern with the documents the committee has actually seen is that the department seems to have a different view. The tragedy here is that the government signs off on those procurement documents. In particular, I'm anxious when I read where the tender documents say:
The successful Tenderer will not be directed to utilise any particular shipbuilding workforce or engage any particular provider of shipbuilding services. In particular, the Commonwealth is not mandating that the successful Tenderer use the workforce—
and I emphasise the word 'workforce'—
of ASC Shipbuilding Pty Ltd currently working on the AWD Program.
It says:
The Commonwealth has selected the Tenderers on the basis of their Reference Ship Designs and their ability to undertake both the design and build of the Ships. The Commonwealth's intention is that the successful Tenderer will (itself or through its Related Bodies Corporate) directly manage and supervise the workforce undertaking the shipbuilding work. The responsibility for build management and supervision should not be subcontracted in its entirety to a third party entity.
So the government is quite deliberately, quite prescriptively, making arrangements that have the effect of excluding Australian companies from that arrangement. But it's not just the bit about Australian companies. The use of that word 'workforce'—not 'company' but 'workforce'—suggests to me that the workers at those plants could rightfully be very concerned that it means them, the individual workers at that plant. So when the preferred tenderers make the statement that they'll employ everyone, you won't necessarily be able to have any confidence in that, because the statements in the documents themselves contradict that proposition.
On top of that, the documents also reveal that the Commonwealth has, at its discretion, the capability to change its mind at any time—at any time! It doesn't actually have to accept these words at any time. It can change its mind. You can have no confidence necessarily that these words have any great value, so therefore we must look to the words and the actions of the people that are actually administering the tender, and this is what really troubles me. What we heard is that Department of Defence's Deputy Secretary, Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, Mr Kim Gillis, personally phoned the three international tenderers to tell them to disregard Austal and ASC's teaming agreement and remind them that the arrangements that the government had entered into stood.
What was this teaming agreement? On 8 June 2017 Austal and ASC Shipbuilding announced an agreement for the purposes of building the future frigate program. In their joint statement, the two Australian shipyards indicated they would:
…act as one in support of the program, pooling their complementary strengths, skills and experience.
Austal's CEO, Mr David Singleton, further stated:
The Austal/ASC Shipbuilding teaming arrangement offers a compelling, low risk, Australian shipbuilding solution for each of the three shortlisted international designers.
He said:
This partnership will bring Austal's unparalleled record in aluminium shipbuilding, exports and operational efficiency to combine with ASC Shipbuilding's expertise in steel warship manufacturing.
ASC Shipbuilding's CEO, Mr Mark Lamarre, stated that the ASC/Austal teaming arrangement was:
… a powerful partnership that not only achieves the Government's objectives for a sovereign and sustainable shipbuilding capability in Australia, as set out in the recent Naval Shipbuilding Plan, but confirms to all those in the industry that there is a bright and successful future ahead.
That doesn't sound particularly radical. It doesn't sound particularly dangerous to our national security. In fact, what we were told at the Senate hearing—both by Mr Singleton and Mr Lamarre—was that there had been constructive and detailed negotiations with each of the three preferred tenderers up until the point that the tender documents were provided by the Department of Defence. Then those discussions were closed down. Stopped—stopped dead!
And I think we are entitled to know why, certainly in relation to the question I asked.
First of all we asked: 'Did Mr Gillis make this unsolicited call?' The answer from the deputy secretary of the department was yes. What was said? We couldn't speculate on what was said exactly, but it was clear in the minds of the committee members from the evidence put to them that there had been a substantial change in the response from the three international tenderers to the Australian shipyards prior to this event, the phone call and afterwards. But it doesn't end there, because there was a further matter confirmed to us. A two-week extension was provided to the three international preferred bidders and no explanation given—not even requested. We were told, yes, the explanation was perhaps as a result of the disruption in the industry caused by the extraordinarily radical statement by ASC and Austal. The disruption, I think, is this: the defence department's plans had come unstuck. The government may well be pursuing one policy but the department is pursuing another. We're entitled to know what the consequence of that is.
I ask a simple question. Minister, you have before you questions from that hearing. Is there anything technically wrong with actually asking the bidders to provide additional information as to why they couldn't include involvement with the Australian shipyards? Further, would there be any delay in the process? We will wait for your answer. That's a technical question that's got nothing to do with national security. You won't be able to wrap yourself in the flag over that one. It's a simple matter. Is there a capability there or not? Is it going to be squandered? You might ask yourself and you might ask your colleague there, Senator Cormann, what you are doing to that asset in Adelaide—an asset that you are driving into the ground. We know what happens in 2019. That shipbuilding asset, ASC Shipbuilding, has no orders on the books come 2019. Its single value is the workers on the books. The only question will be how much you have to pay out in redundancies, and I will want to know the answer to that.
We know what the consequences are. We know that there will be hundreds of job losses coming through the system at ASC over the coming period. We know that ASC will be shedding 250 jobs by Christmas. We know that there will be 500 more by the end of June next year. We're entitled to know, Minister, what you are doing about it. After all, aren't you the senior minister in this outfit? Aren't you the senior minister who is supposed to get all this under control? Or are you just there to do the bidding of Minister Pyne—who is responsible not for a naval shipbuilding program but for a national marginal streets campaign for the Liberal Party? That is what is happening here now. We're not getting a national naval shipbuilding program; we're getting a government preoccupied with its own survival. So you may try to wrap yourself in the flag, but you're not dealing with the fundamental questions here about the consequences of a policy process which you have lost control of. You have fundamentally lost control of it.
I want to know why it is that suddenly the government got so interested in naval shipbuilding. Did it have anything to do with the destruction of the automotive industry? Remember, the automotive industry that this federal government decided to drive out of this country? Remember, it cost us too much? We couldn't possibly sustain an automotive industry in this country. We couldn't possibly sustain the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the automotive industry. It cost us too much. But now we're prepared to spend $90 billion on a national shipbuilding program.
When will we cut steel for that? It will be 2022 for the first; that's the submarines. When will we do that? That'll be real good for the auto workers—won't it? They'll have to wait around for several years, hoping that there might be a job. But they won't get one at the ASC, will they? The ASC will be driven into the ground as well. Ask your colleague, the shareholder minister: what are you doing about the value of ASC? How do you deliberately rundown the value of the ASC and treat it in such a manner?
There is a simple matter here. Is the member for Sturt there to service the building of our national shipbuilding capability, or is he there to service the Liberal Party's short-term political objectives? We know they're terrified of losing seats in South Australia. It's a hell of a price to pay, though, in terms of our national security to play those sorts of games. It's a hell of a price to pay for the lives of auto workers and their families. It's a hell of a price to pay for the lives of workers and their families in the shipbuilding industry in South Australia. But it isn't limited to that.
What about the workers and their families at Austal in Western Australia; not to mention what's happened at the shipyard in Victoria or what's happened in Newcastle? This is a government that has a very limited view of the capabilities of Australian industry—incredibly out of date. We have the situation where Austal has the capacity to build vessels for navies all around the world. It can build them competitively, without subsidies and on time and on cost. It is a highly effective operation. But it doesn't seem to be good enough to build for the Australian Navy. It can build them for the American navy, but it can't build for the Australian Navy. How is that? How do you account for that? We don't have to mandate anything; we just have to ask a simple question: how does that situation arise?
We have the situation where a former minister in this government stood in this place and said, 'We can't be trusted to build a canoe' and then they wonder why hundreds of jobs are flushed into the harbour. How is it that this government chooses to sign off on documents which are now before the Senate committee, where it appears that Australian companies are being treated with such contempt? Why is it that this government relies on such outdated notions of what we are capable of? Why is it that this minister wants to try to pull the wool over our eyes and suggest that we are somehow breaching national security to ask questions like this? That's the issue that's before us. What we have is a government that is preoccupied with its own security; a Prime Minister preoccupied with his own tenure in office—preoccupied over whether or not he'll be able to get through to the next election and stay in office.
The Senate committee will need to meet again. We will need to ask Mr Gillis why he made those calls. I'm sure he'll be looking forward to having a talk to us about that! We'll need to understand why the extension of time was provided. Remember, there is such an urgency about these matters. I think we'll need to understand why it is that Australian companies have been treated so shabbily. Why is it that good discussions were being held between ASC and Austal right up until the point that the documents were made available and suddenly closed? Why is it that this shoddy, shameful behaviour has gone on for so long? There is a deep mystery here, Minister, and I believe the Senate's entitled to pursue it.
We want to know why it is that this government has treated Australian manufacturers in such a shameful and contemptuous manner. Whether you like it or not, Minister, we will be pursuing those matters. Whether your government finds it embarrassing will not change the fact that this has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with the government's political security. Frankly, that's not an excuse that washes within this chamber. Thank you.
I too rise to make a contribution in this debate on an order for the production of documents in relation to shipbuilding. The first thing I want to say, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, is that we get notified every year, every estimates, of the projects of concern. It's intriguing to note that all the projects of concern currently listed by the department are a result of limited tender. If you look at the projects of concern, they are all limited tender projects. So what we're asking for here is more clarity, more transparency, more openness, about the expenditure of billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' money, because we do not want to end up with another project of concern. I will give one example of a project of concern: the OneSKY project, which Defence is a huge partner in. It ended up with one preferred tenderer, at a cost deemed not to be value for money for the Commonwealth. That was the outcome of $400 million-plus of Defence's expenditure.
Not a tender run by Defence.
I take the minister's interjection. It was not completely run by Defence. But it would be no surprise to those people in Defence that the chairman of Airservices Australia is a former Chief of the Australian Defence Force; so they have a fair bit of sway in all areas of Airservices. Anyway, I will get back to the point of concern. I sat through the contributions from Senator Xenophon and Senator Carr. I'm not going to repeat the statements they made, but it's really intriguing to note that, out of all the First World navies, we are the only one to ask foreign shipbuilders to build in country without requiring a local partner to lead the program. There are countries that do that—Belgium, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, New Zealand, Norway, Indonesia.
Senator Payne interjecting—
Look at First World navies. We are a First World navy, and we are asking a foreign shipbuilder—we accept that the foreign design is probably applicable—for a local build. All the nations that have local design, local shipbuilder, local build have moved from foreign design, local shipbuilder, local build. So that's where you should start. But Australia's going to be an outlier, in that we're not requiring the people who have capacity to build ships in Australia to be part of the process. It is astounding that the RFT actually writes them out. We're going back to the days pre-Senator Payne, to the former minister, who did say in this chamber that he wouldn't trust ASC to build a canoe. That came around after an Australian National Audit Office report said that there's no lack of productivity with the workers at ASC; it's the fact they have to do the job three times—not once, not twice but three times—because Navantia and the other people who gave them the plans weren't giving them to the workforce in a way that they were able to do it once, on time. The Australian National Audit Office said there was no lack of productivity amongst the workforce; they simply had to do the job multiple times.
The government does not realise that we've gone on from that stage and that people are skilled. There is tremendous learning vested in ASC. You've paid the price. You've got management right. You've got them on track doing a good job. But you actually wrote to or rang three of the preferred tenderers and said, 'You don't have to engage the workforce and you don't have to talk to them.' That seems me to be quite astounding. And we wouldn't have known about this unless someone had leaked a document.
Let's go to Austal. Senator Carr more or less said it all. This is a company that sells ships to the Vikings! It sells ships to Denmark. It is building ships in the United States. The evidence we had before the committee was very explicit and clear—there was tremendous engagement with all of the preferred contractors. There was tremendous engagement with both ASC and Austal until Mr Gillis made those phone calls. As Senator Carr says, the committee will have to ask Mr Gillis about the intent of those phone calls.
But what's really tragic here is that there is probably a one-off opportunity—I accept the jobs will be in South Australia. I don't think anybody's arguing that there's not going to be a lot of jobs created and sustained for generations in South Australia. But what we really want is someone who's going to take charge of the export potential. If we're really serious about our sovereign shipbuilding potential, we should use this enormous investment of taxpayers' money to expand the skill, to get the people into the training college, to get the design capability, to build ships and sell them to other people. Despite all the criticisms of the motor vehicle industry, we know that, as it's approaching its closure—$1.2 billion worth of cars into the Middle East. When the dollar was 72c, we were building Camaros for the American market. The California police would order stuff from Australia. That was because they had design capability built out of investment in manufacturing.
We have an opportunity to do that in shipbuilding now. We can not only make these ships with an Australian workforce; we can get that Australian workforce to such a place that they will be making, designing and exporting. And that's the vision—and I have to say this in this chamber—that the CEO of Austal is selling. And he sold me. Without any taxpayer subsidy, they can build big ships for the American navy. Without any subsidy, Austal and Incat, a Tasmanian company, lead the world in design and sale of aluminium ships. I'm up for the challenge. They wanted to team with ASC, cut steel and make steel ships. That's what this is about. With $35 billion going in, what you get is a fully productive industry in Australia capable of exporting to the rest of the world and making $10 for every dollar that goes in. That's the challenge here, which I don't see either Minister Pyne or Minister Payne taking up.
When you have that RFT leaked, it looks as if you want to write out Austal and write out ASC. If their evidence to the committee is that all discussions ceased forthwith, well, there are, seriously, some questions to answer about an incredible opportunity for Australia and an incredible opportunity for manufacturing in Australia. I don't think that politics should have anything to do with this. Where practical and possible, we should be able to contribute as an opposition, or Senator Xenophon as a participant in this Senate, for a good outcome for Australia. The way we're going at the moment, we're going to end up, I fear, with another project of concern. A lot of those on the other side—and I don't include the minister in this—who are relying on the bureaucrats in Defence have ended up with projects of concern. When we were in government, we ended up with projects of concern.
So what we need to do is have as much transparency as absolutely practical and possible, recognising there is always commercial-in-confidence. But someone needs to answer to the committee and the taxpayers why we're not looking at this export opportunity. It may need to grow in the three, five or 10 years. Why are we saying we can only have BAE or Fincantieri? The reality is: where is their interest going to lie at the end of this? Their interest is going to lie with their nation. Why don't we have sovereign capability in Adelaide or in South Australia. The supply chain which grows from that would be enormous. It really is quite mystifying that we have ended up in this situation. What we have been asked to believe is: 'Don't worry; there'll be lots of jobs.' Well, I think taxpayers are entitled to more than just jobs; they're entitled to an export opportunity which should be grown out of this project in the whole of Australia.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Pratt for 19 October 2017, on account of parliamentary business.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I present to the Senate a non-conforming petition. It's signed by 153 detainees on Manus Island.
At the request of Senator Abetz, I move:
(1)That the Senate notes that:
(a) Ms Nicole Wells was appointed to the Fair Work Commission on 5 August 2013 on the recommendation of the Honourable Bill Shorten, MP, as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations;
(b) the Registered Organisations Commission is currently investigating the conduct of Ms Wells as a union official; and
(c) the Tasmanian Integrity Commission is currently investigating the circumstances around her appointment to the Tasmanian Industrial Commission.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Employment, by no later than 15 September 2017, all documents held by the Department of Employment relating to the appointment of Ms Wells to the Fair Work Commission, including correspondence and due diligence paperwork.
I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 491, standing in the name of Senator Abetz.
Leave not granted.
Question negatived.
I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Lands Acquisition Act 1989, and for related purposes.
Question agreed to.
I present the bill and 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 table an explanatory memorandum and to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
Mr President, I introduce the Land Acquisition (Public Purpose) Bill 2017,in response to the recent actions of the government in issuing declarations of intent to acquire land from Australian farmers in both the Rockhampton and Charters Towers regions of Queensland.
The federal government statement, as contained in correspondence to land holders, was that the land acquired would be owned by the Department of Defence, allow for expanded training exercises by the Australian Army, as well as facilitating an increase in use by the Singapore Army, (from 6 000 troops for periods of 6 weeks, to 14 000 troops for up to 18 weeks).
The army had only sent out the correspondence in regard to these acquisitions following an inspection by the Singapore Army.
The Singapore Army had stated that it wanted the land for its future training purposes, as indicated in the Department's correspondence about the land in question.
At public meetings held with the landowners by the army, it was clearly stated that the primary purpose of the land acquisition was that the land was being acquired not for the purposes of the Australian Army, but for the use and training of the Singapore Army.
The government referred, in their correspondence, to the Australia–Singapore Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, which included, as a general arrangement pursuant to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA).
The SAFTA agreement refers only to co-operation between the two countries in a number of areas, including the military, as well as technology and agriculture co-operation areas of interest. It does not place an obligation on Australia or Singapore.
The army has a land area in the Shoalwater Bay Training Complex of approximately 1 million acres. Yet the Australian Army stated this was not sufficient. There was no consideration of the interests held by the Australian landowners. Where exactly was the "public purpose" as required by the legislation?
There was absolutely no "public" support for this acquisition, nor was there any "purpose" behind it that benefited the Australian public.
The army had stated the public would benefit from that acquisition.
No benefit could be demonstrated but significant detriment could clearly be demonstrated; not only to the landholders directly affected, but to the entire regions of Rockhampton and Charters Towers.
The loss to Australia of approximately 800,000 acres of prime grazing country. The loss of over 90,000 head of cattle going to local abattoirs and their inevitable closure and loss of employment to both regions.
The loss of over $90 million in cattle sales and twice that figure after processing of the cattle from sales by the abattoirs.
At the briefings to the affected landholders the Army representative stated the local community would be providing food, hospitality and transport, to name a few.
However, it was then found that the Singapore Government had already sought expressions of interests from offshore companies for the transportation of both food & ordinances into the area – food and ordinances supplied directly from Singapore and not from one Australian company.
The government stated it was supporting rural communities, but here it was destroying two communities, offering no compensation to other businesses other than the landowners who didn't want to sell.
Additionally, in the Charters Towers region, Infrastructure Australia and the Prime Minister of Australia had listed the "Hells Gate Dam" project as a high priority project.
Yet the very land that would benefit from that dam was the very land the army had stated it was interested in acquiring.
When raised at a briefing by me, the army representative stated he was unaware of this priority infrastructure, as did the department representative.
It was a clear case of a compulsory acquisition not having a direct "public purpose" as required by the Act, but instead appearing to benefit a third party.
So where was the "public purpose"?
The Australian Army had only sent out correspondence in regard to this acquisition following an inspection by the Singapore Army, and its statement specified that it wanted the land as indicated in the correspondence as the land of interest.
The term "public purpose" is more than the vague legal definition of the Act referring, as it does, to those legislative areas for which the Parliament has power to make laws.
The key element in the land acquisition proposal by the Australian Defence Forces was the definition of "public purpose".
An information guide published by the Department of Finance and Deregulation in May 2011, titled The Commonwealth and You: Compulsory Acquisition of Land stated:
"The Minister issues a document to affected landowners, which states that the Minister is considering the acquisition by the Commonwealth land for a public purpose. This document is a pre-acquisition declaration.
But there is no clarity on the meaning of those words "public purpose".
The second reading speech on the introduction of the Land Acquisition Act 1989 adds little to the meaning of the words other than referring to Section 31 of the Act. However, the following sentence is relevant as it gives the tenor of the purpose of the words within the meaning of the Act:
"This government is concerned by the need to strike a balance between the rights of private property on the one hand and the legitimate needs of society for land for public purposes on the other."
This sentence within the second reading speech clearly delineates that the acquisition is for the benefit of society.
There was no substantive debate on what the phrase "public purpose" meant.
The reason why one has to revert to external explanations is due to the vagueness of the definition within Section 6 of the Act which states as follows:
"public purpose means a purpose in respect of which parliament has power to make laws and includes, in relation to land in a territory, any purpose in relation to the territory."
In judgments on which the issue has been raised, the acquisition must be for the primary benefit of the community and Australia generally.
There has been very little case law on the meaning of the words "public purpose", particularly in the context of a like case of acquisition for the primary purpose of the land for the training of a foreign army.
Irrespective of the wide ambit of the definition of the words "public purpose" within the Lands Acquisition Act 1989, it is evident from case law that such an acquisition must be shown to actually be for the benefit of the public.
The bill which I would seek the support of all parties clarifies the meaning of those important words "public purpose".
It is important for all Australians that they know their land, and their heritage, will never be compulsorily acquired for the benefit of an unrelated third party.
Before any declaration is made by any department to acquire an interest in land, the bill will require that department to demonstrate the purpose of using that interest or for its need for that interest to provide services.
The acquiring authority must show that the need will be for the direct benefit of Australian public or for the provision to the Australian public of necessary services.
The bill does not alter the intent of the original Act.
It clarifies the meaning and intent of the Act so that the Australian public will never again be subject to months of upset and costs in trying to protect their interests for the ongoing benefit of their families.
It overcomes the vagueness of the existing definition but gives clarity to the meaning of those two words: "public purpose", without the need for future litigation.
This bill does not apply to acquisitions by consent.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the consequences of the ongoing conflict in Yemen between Houthi rebels and the coalition forces supporting the recognised President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi have proven devastating for the country and its population,
(ii) approximately 3 million Yemenis have been internally displaced, and more than 8400 have been killed in the conflict, including 5100 civilians of whom 1200 were children,
(iii) the humanitarian situation in Yemen is catastrophic, with the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) declaring in February 2017 that Yemen is the 'largest food security emergency in the world',
(iv) there are 2.2 million children in Yemen suffering severe acute malnourishment, with one child dying every ten minutes from preventable causes, and
(v) despite international calls for a political solution to the crisis, the parties to the conflict have failed to reach a settlement, with neither side having achieved a military victory and being unlikely to do so in the future;
(b) supports:
(i) the Australian Government's pledge on 24 April 2017 of $10 million in aid to Yemen,
(ii) the sentiments espoused in the European Parliament's 14 June 2017 resolution on the humanitarian situation in Yemen, and
(iii) the actions of humanitarian aid groups, such as UNICEF, in working to bring aid to the people of Yemen, including helping to provide access to safe water to more than 2 million people and vaccinating nearly 5 million children against polio; and
(c) urges:
(i) all parties to the conflict to comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law, in an effort to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure,
(ii) all parties to the conflict to work to remove logistical and financial obstacles to the import and distribution of food and medical supplies to civilians, and
(iii) the Australian Government to continue to work closely with other donors, countries in the region, and humanitarian partners to ensure the safe passage of aid to the most vulnerable people.
I seek leave to make a statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government is deeply concerned about the ongoing conflict in Yemen. The government has urged all those involved in Yemen to end the conflict and return to the United Nations led negotiations aimed at a permanent end to the hostilities. The scale of conflict, famine and cholera outbreak in Yemen is impacting the lives of millions of civilians, with the largest effect felt by vulnerable women and children. The government is working with our United Nations and non-government organisation partners through provision of food, clean water, medical assistance and sanitation services. This includes $33 million in funding to the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund over the past three years.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The last time I looked, Yemen was a foreign country. I understood it was a longstanding practice of both Labor and the Liberal Party to deny formality to foreign policy motions, because that has always been the practice directed—
It's a complex one.
Oh, it's a complex one? So who determines what's complex? I'll take that interjection. Apparently, a complex foreign policy matter is a foreign policy matter that we don't agree with. That's a complex foreign policy matter—we don't agree with it, so we'll vote against it.
Let us go to what is at issue here. We welcome this being debated. We have huge concerns about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. We support this motion, but we'd like it to go further. The government should stop pouring petrol on the fires in Yemen and it should end its military trade with Saudi Arabia. Only then will we see a difference in the humanitarian situation in Yemen.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the government business order of the day relating to the consideration of the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 be discharged from the Notice Paper.
I seek leave to amend the motion.
Leave granted.
I move:
Omit all words after "That", substitute "if, by 18 October 2017, the government business order of the day relating to the consideration of the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017, has not been finally considered, the order of the day shall be discharged from the Notice Paper".
Senator Lambie, I do not have the motion in front of me. Do you have that in writing? Senator Lambie, could you sign what you have in writing so that we have it in front of us? Just to simplify things, so that everyone knows what we are doing, Senator Lambie, you are putting: 'That, if by 18 October 2017', and then the words remain the same until 'has not been finally considered, the order of the day shall', after the name of the bill was mentioned. Does everyone understand the nature of the motion? I'm quite happy to read it out. Everyone understands the motion.
I seek leave to make a short statement on the amendment.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Let me definitively put on the record that, when the citizenship bill does come up for debate in this place, the Nick Xenophon Team will oppose the bill in its entirety because it's fundamentally flawed and would require significant redrafting for us to consider it. The government needs to go back to the drawing board on this. As senators, it is incumbent upon us to do the job we have been elected to do, which is debate and vote on bills before us. This is part of a healthy democracy. To honour that duty, the Nick Xenophon Team will support the motion as amended to provide the government sufficient time to bring the bill on for debate and subsequent vote, thereby providing certainty to many migrants who call Australia home.
It does help if we have the amendments circulated in the chamber well in advance. If that could be facilitated, it would make life a bit easier. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Lambie to Senator McKim's notice of motion No. 493 be agreed to.
The question now is that the motion moved by Senator McKim, as amended, be agreed to.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government is committed to strengthening requirements for Australian citizenship. The government's commonsense reforms are designed to maintain public confidence in the citizenship program and to support a prosperous and secure Australia. Citizenship forms the cornerstone of our successful multicultural society. It is disgraceful that Labor and the Greens are not even willing to debate measures to strengthen it. This motion is a stunt that demonstrates how little respect the Greens have for Australian citizenship. In lurching to the extreme Left and partnering with the Greens, Labor has hit a new low on border integrity.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim, as amended, be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate:
(a) acknowledges that there is a crisis in the management of the Murray-Darling Basin which has led to the theft of water and depleted the environmental health of the river system;
(b) notes that this matter requires urgent attention and government intervention;
(c) notes that there is considerable uncertainty about any executive action the current Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources may take because of the unresolved questions around his eligibility and possible lack of legal authority to be a Minister of State under section 64 of the Constitution; and
(d) resolves that the Senate will not consider any bills within the Minister's portfolio from the adjournment of the Senate on Thursday 14 September 2017 until the High Court determines the question of the eligibility of Mr Joyce to sit as a member of the House of Representatives, unless the Prime Minister reallocates the Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio to another minister with clear legal authority to act.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 494.
Leave granted.
I move:
Paragraph (d), omit all words after "resolves that the Senate will not consider any bills within the Minister's portfolio", substitute "from the adjournment of the Senate on Thursday, 14 September 2017 until the High Court determines the question of the eligibility of Mr Joyce to sit as a member of the House of Representatives, unless the Prime Minister reallocates the Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio to another minister with clear legal authority to act".
The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to. Point of order, Senator Macdonald? Senator Macdonald, you do need to be in your seat to address the Chair.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order!
There was someone else in my seat, so I couldn't do that. They've kindly given me—
Are you seeking clarification, Senator Macdonald?
A point of order. I'm not sure which amendment has been circulated in the chamber. It certainly hasn't been circulated to me. If the mover can actually say exactly what the amendment is perhaps we don't need it circulated in the chamber, but it certainly hasn't been circulated to any desk that I've been sitting in either here or over there.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! The amendment has been circulated in the name of Senator Gallagher, and it has been circulated in the chamber. I'm satisfied that it has been circulated. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher to Senator Hanson-Young's motion be agreed to.
The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
I, and also on behalf of Senators Rice and Cameron, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Australian Human Rights Commission estimates that one in four of the 20,000 homeless young people in NSW is gay or lesbian,
(ii) there is a general lack of Australian research on LGBTIQ homelessness,
(iii) international research, for example, 'LGBT Selective Victimization: Unprotected Youth on the Streets' (Ventimiglia, 2012), shows that LGBTIQ people, especially trans people and young people, are disproportionately affected by homelessness, and
(iv) university campuses have been working with students and the Australian Queer Student Network to provide crisis accommodation on campus after LGBTIQ students have been discovered sleeping in classrooms and university spaces set aside for LGBTIQ students; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) work with community stakeholders to develop plans for ending LGBTIQ homelessness, including targeted strategies to support students and young people in LGBTIQ communities who are experiencing homelessness,
(ii) collaborate with stakeholders to secure national data on LGBTIQ homelessness, and
(iii) ensure specific LGBTIQ homelessness programs and an urgent assessment of funding and resourcing needs are addressed in National Housing and Homelessness Agreement negotiations with states.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government allocated funding for homelessness when it came to government, and in this budget announced that funding would increase and be made permanent, something the previous Labor government never did. Labor did not leave a single dollar in the budget for the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, instead creating an Affordable Housing Agreement without any way of measuring whether it delivered a single affordable house. The coalition government's new $1.5 billion housing agreement will for the first time provide funding to the states that is linked to measurable outcomes. In addition to this housing funding, the government will also provide $4.5 billion to 1.3 million people this year to assist with rental affordability. These are real measures that will help all sectors of the Australian community at risk of homelessness, including LGBTIQ people and students.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rhiannon be agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) considers coal-fired power stations in Australia will need to close in order to deal with climate change; and
(b) notes that the Government must have a plan for a managed transition of the workforce and to a clean energy future.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The coalition government does not support the forced closure of coal-fired power stations. The coalition government supports affordable and reliable base-load power generation to ensure downward pressure on prices and to protect manufacturing jobs. Coal will remain a major source for the long-term future.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
We know that if we're going to meet science based targets, not politically based targets, one coal-fired power station has to close each year. We have a choice. We can either look after workers and manage that transition or we can leave them in the lurch. We know that the economics dictate that, no matter what this government tries to do, coal-fired power stations are going to close because they're old, they're inefficient and they cannot meet the dynamic demands of tomorrow's energy system. Coal-fired power stations are going to close because solar, storage, wind and demand response are cheaper than building and maintaining coal-fired power stations. The only reason the coalition doesn't support this motion is that it is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the coal lobby. Malcolm Turnbull is selling out to the coal lobby and, indeed, selling out to the far right of his party. We choose the path of a just transition that looks after workers and looks after the environment.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.
I seek leave to move a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for today to provide for the consideration of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017.
Leave is not granted, Senator Brandis.
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Brandis from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
Unless this motion were to be passed, it would not be possible for the Senate today to complete its consideration of some very important legislation—namely, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017. It is highly desirable that the Senate completes its consideration of that legislation today. I will leave it to the Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts, Senator Fifield, in his contribution to this suspension debate to explain to the Senate the particular importance of dealing with this legislation in a timely fashion, and today. But I simply make the general point that it is now just before six o'clock on Wednesday. The parliament will sit for one more day, and then there will be four weeks before the Senate next sits on 16 October. We have a very full Notice Paper. We have a lot of other important legislation to consider. I think the Australian people would expect senators to actually do their job rather than go out to dinner. I know it is the custom on Wednesday evenings that the Senate adjourns early, so senators can go out to dinner and enjoy themselves around the various restaurants and bars of Canberra. But I think that the Australian people would be more impressed if they knew that we were working tonight when there is pressing and urgent business to be dealt with.
Labor will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders or, indeed, the motion that the government has put in this place at this late hour on a Wednesday evening. I just pick up the point that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has raised in his address, which is the urgent nature of these bills. I would like to remind senators that these bills have been before this parliament for some 18 months now. They have been listed for debate on no less than 10 occasions. There is absolutely no merit at all to the argument that these are urgent and have to be dealt with tonight or, indeed, this sitting week.
Nothing has changed since the time it was listed for debate in the House and in the Senate. Indeed, this week it was listed for debate on Monday, when the government has several hours to debate government legislation, and then it was pulled off two minutes into the dinner break. There was an rearrangement, and other bills were put in its place. Indeed there were, I think, four other non-urgent bills dealt with by the Senate when we could have been dealing with this and allowing for a reasonable debate during normal sitting hours of this place.
This government is incapable of managing its program. Time and time again we find ourselves in a second sitting week, once last-minute negotiations have been held, deals done and money put on the table, with no scrutiny of those deals, and we are informed that we will be sitting until midnight or 11.00 pm—and who knows what will happen tomorrow if the government gets its way.
This is the sixth time this year that the government has had a motion to vary the hours of the Senate, with little or no notice to other senators. It's no way to run the Senate and no way to run the government. This bill, as I said, was first introduced in March 2016, 18 months ago. It's been listed for debate on no fewer than 10 occasions in this chamber, and now the minister wants us to change sitting hours to sit late into the night because the government's finally ready to debate it and have a vote on it.
An opposition senator interjecting—
Good point, in terms of the uncertainty for the people who work in this place, who are now being told at six o'clock at night that they will not be going home to their families until closer to midnight tonight. This shows disrespect for senators in this place. If we look at the role of the Nick Xenophon Team, in particular, hand in hand with the government, doing their deals, we have had: the building and construction legislation in February this year; the social services legislation and the childcare legislation in March; the business tax cuts in March; and the education bill in June—all followed the same path: deals, discussions behind closed doors and, at the last moment, scurrying in here and extending hours to finally debate the bill when the government is ready and on Nick Xenophon's terms. This is the sixth time that the Senate has been placed in this position, where a non-government party, the Nick Xenophon Team, and the government dictate how this Senate is to function for everybody else. It's not acceptable.
The government have lost control of their program. This bill has been sitting here for 18 months waiting to be debated. Indeed, on one occasion I remember we asked to debate this bill and the government refused to allow it to be dealt with. On Monday this week, it was on and off again. There was plenty of time this week to debate this bill in normal sitting hours and to deal with it in a reasonable fashion. But here we are, almost six o'clock at night, and the government are insisting that the rest of us stay here, including all of the staff in this place, without notice, so that the government can push through the deal that they've done with the Nick Xenophon Team. None of us have a say in that at all. We're just meant to suck it up. This is a pattern from this government. They can't manage their program. They rely on the Nick Xenophon Team to help them, and the rest of us are just pawns in the game. It's not a way to run the program.
Senator Brandis interjecting—
You're nodding at that, Senator Brandis. We are pawns in the game. That's how the Leader of the Government in the Senate sees this. Well, this is a lesson to all of us in this place. We shouldn't be treated like this by the government and we shouldn't be required to sit here— (Time expired)
Senator Brandis has sought to suspend standing orders so that he can move a motion that will provide the Senate with the opportunity to debate the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. It has been observed by those opposite that this bill has been around since shortly after the budget, in which we announced a comprehensive media reform package that has the support of Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Limited, Free TV, Commercial Radio Australia, Foxtel and ASTRA. It is not a common occurrence to have all of those organisations on the same page.
In observing that, can I acknowledge the leaders of Australia's media industry, who have been prepared and able to look beyond their own legitimate organisational interests to the wider interests of the Australian media industry. The interest is that they, like those of us on this side of the chamber and a number of the crossbenchers, want to see strong Australian media voices. While we don't always agree with what those in the gallery will write, broadcast, post and blog, we nevertheless do recognise that what they do is an important underpinning for our democracy.
We think this is a very significant package. It is true that it could have been dealt with many months ago if the Australian Labor Party had supported it, but the Australian Labor Party didn't because they're not particularly concerned about the jobs of those who work in Australia's media industry. Let me mention again some of the organisations: Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo—
News Limited.
News Limited and Fairfax. When I mention Commercial Radio Australia, it's important to recognise that Commercial Radio Australia represents radio stations around the nation, in small towns, in large towns and in metropolitan areas. Free TV represents the major capital city broadcasters but also regional broadcasters. What this package is all about is helping to enhance their viability.
I want to acknowledge crossbench colleagues in this place who have been very willing to engage positively and constructively. I also should acknowledge that the Greens have been prepared to engage positively and constructively.
Opposition senators interjecting—
On my left! Order!
I think it's important to recognise colleagues in this place. Even where you may not have reached agreement with them, they nevertheless have been prepared to engage openly and positively. That really leaves the Australian Labor Party as outliers in this place who haven't been prepared to do that. The Australian Labor Party still believe in media bogey-men, and I suppose they believe in media bogey-women as well. They still have their particular predilection when it comes to proprietors. On this side of the chamber, we are proprietor-agnostic.
Our package is comprehensive. It's for the entire media industry. I have observed before, and let me do it again, that one of the most peculiar observations was that of the shadow minister for communications, Ms Roland, who said that the only reason that the Australian media industry is supporting this package is that there's something in it for all of them. Indeed, there is. That's the purpose and that's the point. We want to see good, strong, viable Australian media organisations and good, strong Australian media voices who can hold all of us to account and can do the important work that they do. It is important that we deal with this business. Senator Brandis is seeking to suspend standing orders to enable a motion to be moved to enable us to do just that.
I rise to say that the Australian Greens won't be supporting the government in bringing on this bill by extending hours. We don't agree that this is urgent. We have been participating in discussions in relation to this and looking at the bill very carefully. We all know that it's been sitting on the Notice Paper for a long time and we also know that there has been a case of the boy who cried wolf several times with the urgency of this. It was urgent in June and it was urgent in August; it's now apparently urgent in September. If it didn't happen today or next week, it would be urgent again in October. No, it's not. What is more urgent and more important is to make sure we get it right. I don't think that having a massive whack at our public broadcasters and the ABC is in any way something that should be fast-tracked or, indeed, done at a minute to midnight. That, Mr President, is what will happen if, of course, this hours motion goes ahead.
I have more to say on the bill, of course, when we get into debate. Suffice to say, the Greens don't buy the argument that this is urgent today.
The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Brandis be agreed to.
I move:
That a motion relating to the hours of meeting and return of business for today may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
And I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The question is that the motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, moved by Senator Brandis, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That if by 7.20 pm today, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 have not been finally considered then:
(a) the routine of business from not later than 7.20 pm shall be consideration of the bills listed above; and
(b) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bills or at 11 pm, whichever is the earlier.
The question is that motion moved by Senator Brandis be agreed to.
I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, five proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate the following letter has been received from Senator Hinch:
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The urgent need to protect endangered dugongs and sea turtles in Northern Australia.
Is the proposal supported?
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
Hinch's hunch—they're often wrong—is that this matter of public importance could get sidetracked away from the threatened existence of dugongs and sea turtles and instead focus totally on native title in principle. Let me try to clear that up in anticipation. This is not about native title. It's about taking action to try to make sure that in 50 years time Australian kids won't be saying, 'What was a dugong?' and 'What was a sea turtle?' I'm not opposed to Indigenous people going out on a canoe with a spear and killing for food. What I am against is young bucks in tinnies with powerful outboard motors chasing turtles down and killing them with machetes, flipping them on their backs to die in the hot sun or dragging them behind a fast-moving boat to drown them. Some are tied up in shallow water and kept alive, even after having their flippers cut off.
I was on Green Island recently—supposedly a marine park sanctuary. As our boat pulled in, an official voice on the PA system reminded us that we were stepping into a designated marine park. 'All flora and fauna are protected,' we were told. We were warned not to even pick up a piece of coral. The stentorian male voice should have said, 'All flora and fauna are protected, unless you are Indigenous,' because I've seen photos of Aboriginal hunters swerving amongst the swimmers on Green Island, having chased a turtle into the shallows to grab it and kill it. That's part of Indigenous culture?
How about trophy turtles, the ones that have been nursed back to health by veterinarian Jennie Gilbert at the Cairns Turtle Rehabilitation Centre and then tagged and released? These days, they try to release them 50 kilometres out at sea to protect them from the hunters. One had been nursed for 18 months. It was released and killed within 24 hours, and the tag proudly displayed by the hunters.
I had a sit-down with the Mandubarra elders, who also run a turtle rehab centre. The Mandubarra people have banned the killing of turtles and dugongs in their coastal territory. They explained to me that people from the rainforest tribes come down and kill them. In times gone by, they said, the marauding hunters from the rainforest would have been clubbed, speared or even killed for trespassing and hunting where they weren't welcome.
There's the issue prevalent too in whitefella country, and that is the lack of respect for authority—the lack of respect for their parents, the lack of respect for tribal elders from these young bucks. 'I've got my boat, I've got my outboard—let's have some fun!' That conservative conservation warrior up north, the redoubtable Colin Riddell, has campaigned for more than a decade. He's been lied to by politicians, state and federal, for about that long. He's shown me photos of young Indigenous men with a boatload of turtles. In fact, Colin Riddell first alerted me to the dugongs and their plight when I was on 3AW more than eight years ago. Riddell and Steve Irwin's father, Bob, have been champions of wildlife.
When the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion—a staunch critic of us dugong do-gooders—speaks, I'm sure he'll say, 'They only hunt for food.' How does that explain the photos that I've seen of styrofoam eskies on the luggage carousel at Cairns Airport after flights from the Torres Strait Islands? I tell you, that's not chicken meat packed in ice; that's turtle meat. The scuttlebutt is, up north, that turtle sells for $70 a kilo and dugong for about $130 a kilo. I can't vouch for this to be true, but I've been told that some industrious hunters have earned up to $70,000 to $80,000 a year from this 'cultural activity'.
Everybody in and around Cairns seem to know about it—from the local TV reporters to the cab drivers, the tour boat operators and even the flight attendant on my flight to Cairns. When she found out why I was going there, she described how every school in and around Cairns went on project visits to the turtle hospital, to the rehab centres. She said that, before she joined Virgin, she flew on a regional airline and used to recoil at the pile of turtle shells that they were carrying in the cargo hold. If we can't get a ban on the hunting, can we at least, for starters, get some official head counting of how many are left and how many are being taken? Or maybe we could at least have a moratorium on turtle hunting or have a turtle-hunting season.
In my talks with the elders up in Cairns, I mentioned what the New Zealand government did with Maori support when whitebait was under threat. I know that Australians can't understand why, across the ditch, they have an obsession with whitebait. It's a bit like Australians and Vegemite. When I was growing up in New Zealand, during whitebait season the local fish shop's refrigerated window would be a carpet of silvery white fish, all the size of matchsticks. Other countries call small fish whitebait, which is not true. They're really baby sardines. In places like Canada they're called smelts. Whitebait came under threat in New Zealand because whitebait are, in fact, baby inangas that head from the sea to the rivers, and go upstream to spawn. The baby fish, on the way back to sea, are caught in the nets as they head back down to what they call runs to return to the sea.
In New Zealand, to try and save the whitebait, they shortened the whitebait season. They banned unattended nets, even though Maori had been catching whitebait for centuries. They ordered that all nets had to leave an escape space on either side to ensure that some baby whitebait made it back to sea. That concern for baby critters is echoed over turtles by Mandubarra elders that I talked to. They have a new enemy. It's not just thrill killers with outboard motors on their boats. Dune buggies and other four-wheeled vehicles are leaving deep ruts in our beaches. It means that, after the mother turtle makes it up the beach to lay her eggs—remember, turtles don't even start to breed until they are 20; and that's another reason their very existence is under threat—and her eggs hatch, the baby turtles have to scurry down the beach to the sea. Many are eaten by birds. Now, increasingly, they fall into the deep wheel marks and can't climb out the other side. This makes them even easier targets for the birds.
I want to go back to the dugongs, those amazing creatures who are cousins to the American manatee. I didn't know this, but they have more in common in their ancestry with the elephant than the dolphin. If you look closely, you can understand that. These gentle dugongs are among the most endangered creatures in our oceans today. As such, they are, rightfully, protected in Australian waters and can't be hunted, except for that exception that I mentioned earlier. The exception allows Indigenous groups to hunt them on cultural grounds under native title. The hunting and taking of these beautiful creatures, these endangered dugongs, and the turtles, are not happening on a small scale. There is no hunting season for these marine mammals, which other endangered species are afforded. It means they can be hunted at any time of the day on any day of the year. There are no controls, no rules, regulating or limiting what can or cannot be done to these creatures.
The governments admit they have no idea how many dugongs and turtles are actually being killed. Although I saw a federal report from 2000 estimating it was up to 1,600 dugongs and 20,000 turtles being killed every year, the unregulated, free-for-all hunting of these endangered creatures means there's little data on the true magnitude of the practice. The legal loophole results, as I said, in thousands of dugongs being caught, butchered and sold.
When we hear about the slaughter of whales or dolphins by the Japanese, by their fleets, the Australian public is appalled—and rightfully so. So why do we have a double standard for the slaughter of dugongs and sea turtles in our own backyard? That's why I would say tonight: not only is the killing of these creatures wrong; the way they're being killed is horrific. Hunters will chase a dugong until the target is exhausted, then they'll spear it. They'll pull the dugong in by the tail and forcefully submerge the dugong's face and drown it. This process can take up to 20 minutes before the mammal dies.
On my recent fact-finding visit to Cairns and Green Island I met a New South Wales couple who'd been going there every winter for 25 years. The wife told me that these days they rarely see a turtle and this year they did not see one dugong. The Hinch team went out on Steve Davies' glass-walled submarine, Big Cat Green Island. We saw some wonderful schools of colourful fish. I'd not been there for 50 years but I'm sure, unless my memory is playing tricks, that I saw some vibrant pink coral back then. It was very dull coral this time. I was told that bleaching has affected more than 30 per cent of the reef.
So, for the record tonight, we saw from the sub one turtle but not one dugong. I say that unless something is done about this and unless restrictions are imposed, and imposed yesterday, then in 40 or 50 years from now the dugong and the sea turtle will be extinct.
First of all, I commend Senator Hinch for bringing on this important MPI discussion. It will be really interesting to hear from a number of people who I know are passionate about two things—people's native title right in connection with culture and the sustainable preservation of that culture. I want to make the point that there is no difference, Senator, because, in a cultural approach, the fundamental approach to take of the land is it has to be sustainable. In some circumstances, where we have new technology and all of those sorts of matters, we have the reason for this debate.
First of all, Senator Hinch started out by saying that you don't want kids of the future to say: 'What was a dugong? What was a turtle?' I know that these are the sorts of things that drive really decent people like you, Senator, and many other Australians. Let us look at the evidence around the environmental impacts of traditional hunting of these animals. We know about this from research done by the James Cook University and from some fantastic work that's been done by Helene Marsh and others. We had a bit of a hiccup in some of that data around 2014, but Helene Marsh and others acknowledged that some of the assumptions and inputs weren't quite right and now that's been changed. But it is safe to say that the overall impact of traditional hunting on turtle and dugong populations is small. The main impacts on populations are, in fact, from other areas.
One of the main areas is marine debris, particularly gillnets. Often demersal gillnets are in shallow water. When they pick themselves up they pick up a bit of coral and then they float. For the whole time they're at sea they are responsible for taking the lives of turtles. Some time ago I was a fisherman. I can remember a time when we knew we killed in trawl nets 400 or 500 turtles, which we recorded. We then introduced some turtle-excluding devices, and we now kill none. We know every single one. So through technology we've managed to ensure that those other things that happen are now reduced.
One of the big threats, of course, is in their habitat, particularly the nursing habitat. The olive ridley turtle and other turtles use the mainland of Australia around the gulf. There has been an explosion in the feral pig population. The pigs dig up the beach and eat all of the turtle eggs. We've invested some $7 million—it doesn't matter about the amount of money—in significant work to ensure that turtles have a level of protection when they lay their eggs.
It is useful to know that in communities that I know very well there is a turtle hunting season and there is a dugong hunting season. We do have a pretty well-established base of understanding. That needs to grow. I'm hoping that the Indigenous ranger program is part of that base. You can't manage what you can't measure. It is very important that we move to a higher level of amenity in that regard. We need to end up with community based management of both species and habitat, and that's about people. We have this huge investment in our marine ranger program, and that's going to expand. Quite clearly the vision of the future is community based, with the assistance of the Commonwealth ranger program, ensuring the management of the species and the habitats.
Senator, I have had the experience of hunting quite a few dugong and lots of turtle. There's a campaign on. All I can advise is that people will twist circumstances to suit their ends. The way you described it—I have heard it described in that way before myself, but I've never witnessed it, and I have been involved in the actual hunting of dugong.
This is a very important nexus we have. It is a native title right. People are currently exercising their native title right sustainably. All of the evidence says that is sustainable. From my perspective and from the government's perspective, it's important to continue to ensure that all of these issues are sustainable. That's why we're going to continue to invest in the ranger program and will do some further work. It's now emerging that we need to measure how many turtles and how many dugong are taken, the same as every other fisheries management plan, if we want to maintain sustainability.
I strongly support the contribution that's just been made by Senator Scullion. I think you've been reading the same resources I have, Senator Scullion. Certainly, one of the things I want to do is pay my respect to the wonderful work that Helene Marsh has done through James Cook University and also the various researchers who work in that space.
Senator Hinch, one of the things that's really clear is that there has been considerable effort put in place over many years by people who care very, very deeply for these wonderful animals: the dugong and the turtle. There are different groups of turtles—there's not just one type—but the dugong is pretty special. It's probably one of the most precious and unusual animals you could find. I don't think anyone can truly describe a dugong. Through the work at James Cook and also through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, there has been consideration of the various issues around the importance of having an effective balance between protecting these extraordinary animals—which belong to all of us; they are part of our natural environment; they are precious to all of us—and working very effectively with the local people up there who share the love of these animals.
In fact, the first time I learnt about the dugong was when I was working in Townsville. Some of the elders from the Torres Strait came to Townsville, to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and talked to us about the special relationship that the people have with these animals in that region. They also talked about the longstanding relationship in terms of hunting these animals, but they talked most particularly about the balance, which is so important in community, to grow community and maintain tradition.
Senator Hinch, I have also heard the stories you described. They are horrific and they don't reflect the kind of respect that is traditional in this area. When the Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreements were developed, they were very clear. The traditional-use agreements describe how Great Barrier Reef traditional owner groups work in partnership with the Australian and Queensland governments to manage traditional-use activities on their sea country. The important thing—and I think it is one of the things that Senator Scullion was talking about—is how we get people working effectively in these partnerships, sharing the traditional respect and sharing the traditional knowledge and skills. One of the things that was most concerning, Senator Hinch, was when you talked about how you feel there is a breakdown in generational respect and that what we need to do is rebuild the core of what we're talking about when we're talking about the agreements. When individual agreements are signed, that brings into being how the long-term historical relationships are established.
There should be further development of the marine rangers program, which uses local people to continue to not just maintain and keep records of where the animals are and how they can be best looked after but also retrain the people who live in those communities about their responsibilities to their own communities, to their families, to their history and to the protection of this wonderful marine life. Also in this space, it is particularly important that we keep a balance. There must be effective scientific monitoring. James Cook does do monitoring, but I think we can do better. We can collect better data.
One of the things that Helene Marsh has talked about is the fact that there are other contributing factors to the loss of animals in this space. The things that stay in my mind are the welfare issues around being caught, drowning in nets and ingesting marine debris. We had a Senate inquiry on that quite recently, and the horrors of marine debris and the impact it had on the marine life in that place still haunt me.
When you brought this forward, Senator Hinch, I did some background research. That referred to a federal government report done last year by the Australian Crime Intelligence Commission, which looked at issues around the taking of turtle and dugong meat. This particular report doesn't seem to have been made public yet; they've made statements out of it. The ACIC chief executive said that the two-year investigation found no substantive evidence of any organised illegal trade in meat. I think you were referring to that aspect of the illegal trade. This ACIC report looked at those issues and came up with the finding that there was no evidence of that trade. But what we have not seen is that report and, as a result of this discussion this afternoon, I will continue to ask about whether we have had— (Time expired)
Thank you, Senator Hinch, for bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate. It is a pleasure to debate the future and the protection of some of our most important wildlife here in the Senate tonight. The Australian Greens always stand for strong environmental and marine protection laws. We know there are monumental pressures on our native animals due to the loss of their habitats as a result of global warming and pollution. For marine animals, we can then add a whole range of other risks: entanglement in nets, boat strikes and other accidental interactions with people. There is absolutely no defendable case that native animals—in this case, dugongs and sea turtles—that are already under this pressure should also be struggling for their survival because of commercial and recreational fishers and hunters.
We categorically condemn the commercial and recreational take of threatened, endangered, vulnerable or protected species, whether on land or in marine environments. In the case of dugongs and varieties of sea turtles, we know that these animals are variously listed as threatened, endangered, vulnerable or protected across northern Australia. Indeed, nearly all species of sea turtles are classified as endangered. That means they are on that trajectory to no longer being with us. So it's shocking that populations of these animals are suffering from poaching and overexploitation.
We're urging the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, through their environmental protection agencies, to commit to much better and closer monitoring of these animal populations, to commit to strong laws that prohibit unsustainable take and to commit sufficient resources to protection or recovery plans, where needed, so that these plans can be successful.
It's also clearly essential that we recognise the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to traditional and ceremonial practices. We know that the traditional owners of sea country care deeply about the conservation of these native animals. We respect the wisdom and custodianship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional owners, which has developed over thousands of years. We also know that there are challenges in relation to the maintenance of cultural hunting practices alongside the conservation work needed to ensure the survival of species. It's important that traditional owners are absolutely engaged in the leadership of this conservation work and that it's not a top-down approach from government.
We see the way forward in addressing these practices that you've outlined, Senator Hinch, is to be strong supporters of the Indigenous ranger program and, in this case in particular, the sea country rangers. Indigenous ranger programs have been very successful in enabling traditional owners to maintain a connection with their land and their sea and, in doing so, to protect native wildlife. We must continue to support and expand the Indigenous ranger programs around the country. I think we should consider looking at what enforcement powers Indigenous rangers should have in caring for their sea country. It's actually not appropriate to have top-down government enforcement. Indigenous rangers want to, and can, protect their country.
Senator Hinch, even though the images that you brought to us today of the slaughtered animals are shocking, we must not lose sight of the fact that there are other multiple and massive threats to our native wildlife. While the hunting of native species is an issue we absolutely need to address, we have to tackle some of the other major issues as well. There are toxic plastics choking our oceans and chronic overfishing. In particular, we need to be tackling and taking serious action on global warming. We could do everything possible today to protect dugongs and sea turtles—but without protecting those animals from the impacts of global warming, all of those measures would be for nothing. We know that dugongs rely upon seagrass populations, and seagrass is very vulnerable to the impacts of severe weather. With the more intensive cyclones, hundreds of kilometres of seagrass can be wiped out. When beaches become inundated, the sand gets hotter and sea turtle populations can be wiped out. We have to tackle global warming. (Time expired)
I thank Senator Hinch for raising this extraordinarily important issue, not only in this chamber but for taking the time to come and raise it with me as well. It is an issue that, unquestionably, will resonate with all Australians. Nobody, absolutely nobody, wants to see cruelty to turtles or dugongs. Anybody who wasn't horrified by the stories and the images that Senator Hinch has brought to us—and by some of the alleged practices in the northern part of Australia in relation to these beautiful creatures—is nothing but heartless. Nobody supports the illegal slaughter of these or any other animals; anybody caught doing this should, and will, have the full weight of the law thrown at them.
However, we also need to be mindful that we in this place all support Indigenous Australians who want to exercise their rights and interests under native title—that is, in this instance, the hunting of turtles and dugongs for personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs in accordance with their traditional laws and customs. We also acknowledge that dugong and turtle are a very important source of protein for traditional inhabitants, particularly those who inhabit the area of the Torres Strait. Outside of this very limited take, no dugong or turtle should ever be slaughtered. In fact, I doubt that you're going to get any argument at all on this position from the Indigenous community. I'm really looking forward to hearing, in a little while, the contribution of Senator McCarthy, who is very close to this issue. She can speak for the Indigenous community on this particular issue, but I hope I'm not speaking out of turn in saying that I believe that the Indigenous community is equally concerned about any illegal take of these beautiful animals which are such an important part of Indigenous culture. I also know that the Indigenous community is working really hard with the federal government to stamp out some of the barbaric behaviours which Senator Hinch referred to.
If there is a good news story in this very sad and tragic affair, it's the Indigenous rangers program that Senator Scullion raised. That program is operating successfully in the northern part of the country, particularly in the Torres Strait. These rangers are the frontline warriors who are defending the turtle and the dugong, and who are reporting illegal findings, unacceptable behaviour and non-compliance. Not for one minute do I want to diminish what you have put on the record, Senator Hinch, but it is comforting to hear that arrests have been made and charges laid, and most of this has been made possible through the fantastic work of Indigenous rangers.
I also want to acknowledge the dugong sanctuary in the western part of the Torres Strait, where hunting is now prohibited. My understanding is that the Torres Strait community is working hard to have a similar approach applied to the hunting of turtles in that area. We probably need to be clear that there are a number of issues that have been raised by you, Senator Hinch. The threats to the existence of turtles and dugongs are, we know, not just the activities that you were talking about but also marine pollution and habitat decreasing. The impact of Indigenous fishing has been proved to be a reasonably small component of that. But we're not talking, necessarily, about legitimate Indigenous fishing; you're talking about illegal, barbaric activities and things that none of us in this place can possibly condone. We're also talking about cruelty. There is not a person in this place—I'd like them to stand up if there is—that condones cruelty of any kind against these beautiful creatures.
I acknowledge that this is a really sensitive issue for many who find the activities and actions that you talked about very confronting—and, I have to say, Senator Hinch, I'm one of those people. We must use all the tools that are available to us to protect these much-loved creatures. I'm happy to continue to work with you to ensure that turtles and dugongs have the highest possible protection and to ensure that, when they are killed under traditional law, it's done so without unnecessary cruelty. (Time expired)
I would also like to thank Senator Hinch for putting this issue on record for us this evening. I feel very lucky to represent the state of WA. In our backyard, we have a unique and wonderful abundance of wildlife, flora and fauna, and especially our marine life. I know you, Madam Acting Deputy President, will wholeheartedly agree with me. Along our 13,500 kilometres of coastline, which is phenomenal, we have marine life from massive whale sharks and humpbacks to the much smaller sea turtles that are part of tonight's debate. Of the seven species of sea turtle across the world, six of them appear in the Kimberley coastline and five of those species are also known to nest there. There are dugongs from Shark Bay all the way up over the Northern Territory and the north, but there's a big part of Western Australia that is known as one of the world's best habitats for dugong.
There is no doubt that the existence of sea turtles on the WA coast is particularly at threat. Our state's Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act has listed the loggerhead and olive ridley species as endangered, meaning that if the current threats to their existence continue they will become extinct. This same act lists the hawksbill green and flatbacked turtles as vulnerable, which means their populations are also at risk of becoming endangered.
As has been highlighted already by others in this debate, the Indigenous ranger programs around our nation have a really important role to play in marine conservation. They are successfully doing so in Western Australia. Both the Nyangumarta and the Nyul Nyul rangers have been working to protect the sea turtle species in WA. They've been doing this by monitoring the turtles' activities, particularly during nesting times, and they're monitoring the nesting through the warmer parts of the year when they nest. I can also put on record tonight that the Pormpuraaw Land and Sea Rangers in the Cape York Peninsula have recognised the threat posed by feral pig populations that affect the reproduction of sea turtles along their coast. Feral pigs are killing endangered marine turtles by destroying their nests and eating the eggs that are left behind. So it's not just human threats to this wildlife; it is, indeed, the feral animals as well. The rangers have been culling feral populations, monitoring for predation by the pigs to these nesting areas and providing predator-proof cages for the turtles.
The Kimberley Land Council raised with me recently—and I had the privilege of going to their ranger conference a few weeks ago—the importance of them having proper regulatory and policing powers to do their work as rangers in order to protect these species. This is so that the kinds of examples that Senator Hinch has been talking about can be properly policed by our Indigenous rangers. This will take training and investment in their skills, and it also means that they need to be paid properly for this work. Our ranger communities are the people on our coastline. This is their community and their environment. They're connected by culture to the coastline, and they are the right people to be doing this work. It's not like there is a particularly big presence of any other surveillance along the coast in these circumstances. So it's critical that rangers be empowered to do this work. I'm particularly pleased that federal Labor committed at the budget to providing $210 million over five years to double the number of Indigenous rangers under the Working on Country program, and I really hope that they will be able to make a contribution to this important work. (Time expired)
I have to say that it's a very recent interest of mine, dugongs and sea turtles, and it was driven principally by Colin Riddell through his torment of me on Twitter. He was continuing to tag me—or whatever they do—in tweets with pictures of dugongs, baby dugongs, adult dugongs and green sea turtles, and it piqued my interest. Eventually I responded and said: 'Enough is enough. You've got my interest, and I want to find out more about this.'
I haven't been to Cairns or to North Queensland to examine this issue like Senator Hinch has, so I don't know what I don't know, and I've learned a lot by listening to this debate today. But I have commissioned some research into this and the intention behind allowing native hunting and native title hunting. I have to state for the record that I'm not opposed to people hunting animals for food or even for recreation. I don't particularly like it myself, but I'm a realist in this sense. But I'm not a big fan of giving certain people special rights over others. However, interestingly, there was a contribution from the Law Society—I'm referring to some research here—with respect to native title hunting. It says that there may be some conflict between what the original inhabitants of Australia would like to do, or have been historically doing, and the interests of conservation here. I think we're wise to be mindful that, where competing rights in our community are at odds, we have to find a workable solution.
I do note that the workable solution, I understand, from 1987 to 2002, was a permit-based system. The permit-based system was designed to allow a sustainable harvest, which is wise and prudent, but also to monitor the hunting levels, so that accurate records could be kept. I'm disappointed, of course, that a lot of the people who chose to go out and hunt these turtles and dugongs chose not to participate in the permit system. Somehow they thought that it didn't apply to them and it wasn't necessary. So that was abandoned in favour of a zonal system in the Great Barrier Reef.
I remain unconvinced by either side of the argument. I know how people will embellish arguments to support their cause, but accurate hunting numbers are very, very difficult to ascertain. But what is not difficult to ascertain is how these species are considered by various governments. If we talk about the Queensland government for a moment, the green turtle is listed as vulnerable and is protected; the loggerhead turtle is endangered; the hawk's bill turtle is vulnerable; and the dugong is deemed to be vulnerable, too. These are all harvested using modern technology and modern conditions to preserve an ancient tribal right or cultural right that never included outboard motors or never included spear guns, modern ropes or things of that nature. This is one of the great conflicts there. If you want to preserve the traditional, historical rights of Aboriginal people to hunt as they always have, how can it be rational and reasonable to allow them to hunt slow-moving dugongs and turtles with outboard motors?
It is only going increase their take rather than the cultural heritage which it purports to represent.
There are a great many conflicts that we have to resolve in this. I support Senator Hinch's interest in this. I'm interested in it too, not from any particular perspective except that I want to find out what the truth is. Unfortunately, I have to say, I'm more aware of some of the issues that have arisen from this debate, but I still don't know quite where the truth lies. Governments, ministers and oppositions will tell you certain things based on their interpretation of facts, as Senator Hinch's hosts in Cairns will tell other facts or statements from their perspective. But I will put on the record that I do intend to get to Cairns. I do intend going to the turtle hospital and going out onto the reef and having a look and talking to people on both sides of the equation to ascertain for myself, as closely as I can, where the truth lies. I'm not opposed to hunting, but something here doesn't smell right, and I think that needs to be resolved.
I thank Senator Hinch for his matter of public importance today. The Australian government is committed to the protection of dugongs and turtles and acknowledges the native title rights of Indigenous people to hunt on their land and sea country. The Minister for the Environment and Energy, the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP, has discussed allegations of the illegal hunting of turtles and dugongs with a number of his colleagues. The Australian government will work with Indigenous communities to ensure we have the most appropriate arrangements in place to sustainably manage these iconic species and protect them from illegal hunting.
There is a significant body of research available on the size and trend in populations of turtle and dugong in Australian waters. Numerous studies have found the overall impact of traditional hunting on turtle and dugong populations to be relatively small, with the main impacts on these species being climate events, habitat loss and entanglement in and ingesting of marine debris. This is a sensitive issue for Indigenous Australians who have native title rights to hunt turtle and dugong, just as it is a sensitive issue for people who find such hunting confronting. While some groups may agree to collect data on the sustainability of hunting, other groups will be fearful that this is the first step towards eroding their rights.
The coalition's Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan is currently delivering $5.3 million for the protection of dugongs and turtles in North Queensland and the Torres Strait. This includes $2 million to support the training of Indigenous rangers in compliance related activities. A $2 million Australian Crime Intelligence Commission investigation into the practice of illegal killing, poaching and transportation of turtle and dugong meat was referred to by Senator Moore. The investigation subsequently found that the poaching and sale of meat was almost certainly minimal and usually opportunistic, and that there was no substantive evidence to suggest that an organised commercial trade existed in Queensland or the Torres Strait area. I advise the Senate that relevant ministers are currently considering the contents of this investigation report.
The Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan also includes $700,000 towards marine debris clean-up activities in the Great Barrier Reef to reduce impacts on turtles and dugongs. In February 2015, through amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, the coalition government tripled penalties for killing or injuring turtles and dugongs. In June 2016, the traditional owners near Cairns agreed to no take of turtles and dugongs in three areas around Green Island, Michaelmas Cay and Fitzroy Island. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has also accredited this under what is known as a traditional use of marine resources agreement. The joint Australian and Queensland government's Nest to Ocean Turtle Protection Program is providing $7 million to protect marine turtle nests from terrestrial predators such as feral pigs.
In June last year the government announced new initiatives for compliance vessels to support communities in the Cairns area to implement traditional uses and to reduce marine debris around the northern Australian coastline. In May this year Minister Frydenberg, jointly with the Queensland minister and the New South Wales minister, approved a recovery plan for marine turtles in Australia. We remain committed to protecting dugongs and turtles, through an agreement with the government of Papua New Guinea, under the Torres Strait Treaty of 1985, which protects the Torres Strait marine environment and indigenous flora and fauna but allows traditional inhabitants to hunt turtles and dugongs in the area, according to established custom.
The Torres Strait Regional Authority's Dugong and Turtle Management Project supports the sustainable take and culturally appropriate management of dugongs and marine turtles in the Torres Strait. This is in line with community based plans that integrate traditional use and contemporary science and management approaches. I conclude, Senator Hinch, by thanking you for bringing this matter to our attention.
I would like to commend Senator Hinch for bringing to the Senate this MPI about protecting dugongs and sea turtles. The speakers here this evening have, most importantly, raised concerns around the care and protection of dugongs and sea turtles. I want to share with the Senate the cultural and spiritual importance of dugong and sea turtle—in particular, to the Yanyuwa people, to whom I belong, in the Gulf Country. We are known as li-antha wirriyarra, which means our spiritual origins are in the sea country, so dugongs and sea turtles are very much what we are about. We have a dance called the ngardiji, which means the mermaid dance and the dreaming. In terms of cultural and spiritual significance, those stories of country are integral to the way first nations people live.
But there is no room for the desecration and the incredible cruelty that we've seen at different stages over the years. The penalties that are there should apply. Clearly, if you break the law, those penalties need to apply. The strength of the first nations rangers on our coastlines—in particular, in northern Australia—is absolutely outstanding. I've heard speakers today talk about what are traditional practices and what are contemporary practices of first nations people. Believe me, that is an ongoing conversation that takes place, even within our own families across Australia, as first nations people.
I would like to share a couple of the language words that the Yanyuwa people use, because this helps us when we explain and describe the importance of cultural and spiritual linkages to these beautiful sea creatures. Yurduwiji means the dust that is stirred up in the seagrass country. Yurduwiji arrawa means that the sea dust is there because of the dugong as opposed to sea dust that might be brought up because of other issues, like cyclones or changes in tides. This is important. The sediment disturbed by feeding dugong and sea turtle is manginy. All of this is very much a part of our cultural understanding of who we are as first nations people, as Yanyuwa, li-antha wirriyarra.
The use of canoes went on very much right up to my mother's time. My mother sailed the seas in the canoes of the Yanyuwa. The use of canoes was very much a part of hunting for dugong and sea turtle. I disagree with speakers when they say that you shouldn't use speedboats. I think we have to take the use of speedboats into consideration. If I refer back to my own clan and kinship groups in the Gulf Country, there is also a deep respect in how that hunting takes place. The use of speedboats means slowing down. People need the speedboats to get out to the island country but, when they know they're hunting for dugong, something else takes place—a deeper respect of how you're going to do it. What we use in the Gulf Country is harpoons. There is a real pride that comes with being a dugong hunter and doing it properly, with the deepest of respect.
The dugong hunter plays a significant role in terms of kinship responsibility. When a dugong hunter goes out and hunts a dugong, then brings it back to the land, the dugong is turned to face towards the sea. Again, there is a blessing that goes with how that dugong not only has just been caught but is about to be killed to feed the clan and the family group that are gathered on any of the many islands in the Gulf Country. It may be on West Island, North Island, Centre Island, Vanderlin Island, South West Island, Black Craggy Island, White Craggy Island or Skull Island. These are the islands that make up the Yanyuwa country, where the dugongs and sea turtles live.
We have a ranger group called the Li-Anthawirriyarra Sea Rangers, who are incredibly proud of monitoring all of that coastal area to care for and protect the dugongs and sea turtles—so much so that they will come down hard on anyone, Indigenous or otherwise, who is doing the wrong thing; either in terms of exploiting the dugongs and sea turtles or in terms of their sale. If there is a black market out there, they are the front line. It is significant that we have these first nations rangers. They must be enabled to be resourced far better than they are. I commend Senator Scullion for the work that he does with the rangers, but I know that this parliament can do so much more in terms of facing what we know is a growing concern, not just about the dugongs and sea turtles but also about anyone who's trying to come into Australia and anyone who's doing anything illegal with other goods across the seas. These sea rangers are usually the first ones who will know about what's happening on their country, on the seas and on the land. In the Northern Territory there are 130 rangers who are employed, full-time and or on a casual basis, and half of them work on protection programs. Recently, there has been promotional material developed in consultation with the NLC rangers and the Northern Territory Department of Environment and Natural Resources around the responsible harvest of eggs.
In Borroloola, there's been a long-term project monitoring nesting rates. On West Island, where they have the home of the flatback sea turtles, it is part of a school holiday program to take the kids back out on country to teach them, again, of li-anthawirriyarra—the importance and the essence of being people who are strong from the sea but care about the sea country, the seabeds, and understand the meaning of all of those things. In Yanyuwa, there is a relationship with all of it. Just as there is a relationship between the dugong hunter and the dugong, there is a relationship with the seabeds and the sea country—where the grass seabeds are, in the area of the islands, or out in the open sea further towards deeper water. All of these things are taught as part of looking at the nesting programs of the flatback sea turtles out on West Island. It is an incredible program that the sea rangers are very proud of. They are very proud of the monitoring, but also very proud of sharing the knowledge.
The other thing about the spiritual relationship with the sea country is that there is great sadness at even the death of one dugong. If that dugong is there and has been cut to feed the family, there is sorrow with that. That comes back to the religious and spiritual relationship of why dugongs are important and, again, I speak specifically for the Yanyuwa. I share this because I think it might give a bit of insight as to why people don't want to see the desecration of or the cruelty to any animals and, if that is occurring, then those penalties need to apply and they must be enforced.
I note that Senator Scullion mentioned other things that impact our sea creatures—the fishing industry with its boats, nets, ghost nets, which have caused more harm to our sea turtles than anything else. I thank you, Senator Hinch, for bringing this to the Senate.
The issue raised by Senator Hinch has been around a long time. I've been in the Senate almost 30 years, and it was an issue 30 years ago. Since that time, advances have been made. We all appreciate that the dugong and turtle are very special animals but are also animals that need to be protected, if they are to continue. We do understand and appreciate that they have a special significance for Indigenous people. It's important therefore that the species continue to exist so that cultural connection is available to Indigenous communities into the future. To do that, we have to ensure that any hunting of dugong and turtle for traditional purposes must be done in the traditional way. The use of speedboats and mechanised killing equipment is really not part of the game.
I have formed some very strong views on this subject over the years and I have checked my views with the ultimate expert in relation to dugongs and turtles—a former crocodile farmer and hunter, who has one of the best aviaries in Australia and whose wife runs a very special cattle station—and that is the member for Leichhardt, the Hon. Warren Entsch, who has been on this particular subject for a long period of time. He agrees with me, and I agree with him, that for the species to continue and for traditional native title and cultural rights to be observed, it is important that the species only be taken in the traditional way. They shouldn't be hunted in green zones or protected areas, and they should not be allowed to be caught by commercial netting. Apparently, there are instances of this in the north all of the time.
It is essential that meat from dugongs and turtles is not allowed to be cryovacked and then transported by air to other parts of Australia. This is not part of the traditional use of dugong and turtle, and it needs to be stamped out. It's very important that we do support the ranger program that was introduced by the Howard government and has been emphasised by the Abbott and Turnbull governments. It's a great program; the rangers do a fantastic job. They are the ones who can control and monitor the proper take and proper conservation of turtles and dugongs. But there are instances, and I think Senator Hinch mentioned some, particularly at Green Island, where tourists from all around the world, including Japan, come to Green Island to be told by the guides how special these animals are. But one family group—only one family group—ignore the elders, ignore the rangers, ignore the significant traditional owners and are killing these animals on the beach at Green Island in front of Japanese tourists, who turn to each other and say, 'Well, Australia criticises us for killing whales, and here we are on Green Island and, in front of everyone, they are slaughtering these very, very special animals.' That has to stop. The former Newman government in Queensland passed some very stringent laws. Unfortunately, those laws—which would prevent this and impose penalties—haven't been followed up in recent times. It's essential that they are.
There are instances of people doing the wrong thing. By and large, traditional owners do the right thing. I repeat that the rangers do a fantastic job in monitoring and trying to protect the species. They need to be given more power so they can stamp out the bad practices of a few wildcards who flout the laws and treat these animals inhumanely and with disrespect.
Order! The time for the discussion has expired.
I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 12 of 2017 of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.
Ordered that the report be printed.
On behalf of Senator Polley, I present Scrutiny Digest No. 11 of 2017 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.
Ordered that the report be printed.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the 10th report of 2017—Human rights scrutiny report.
Ordered that the report be printed.
I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 10 of 2017.
The committee examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law.
In performing its scrutiny function, the committee may play an important role in enhancing understanding of, and respect for, human rights in Australia as well as ensuring appropriate consideration of human rights issues in legislative and policy development. In my view, the committee is well placed to take on a crucial leadership role in the consideration and oversight of human rights matters. To this end, the committee recently had a very productive meeting with the new President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Rosalind Croucher, and a number of areas of interest were discussed.
Turning to the committee's current report, the majority of new bills considered – eleven – were assessed as either promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights. There are also two matters in respect of which the committee is seeking further information from the relevant minister in relation to human rights compatibility.
The report also contains the committee's concluded examination of a number of pieces of legislation including the:
In relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017, the committee initially raised concerns about the compatibility of measures in this bill with the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to equality and non-discrimination. However, following correspondence with the minister and the provision of further information, the committee has concluded that these measures are likely to be compatible with human rights. This was on the basis of the existence of safeguards which appear designed to assist to ensure that the most vulnerable will continue to have access to social security payments to meet basic necessities in a range of circumstances.
I encourage my fellow senators and others to examine the report to enhance their understanding of the committee's work.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 10 of 2017 to the Senate.
I present the report of the Select Committee on a National Integrity Commission, 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.
Given the amount of time that is available to us this evening, I seek leave to incorporate the majority of my remarks and make some further additional comments.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
The Select Committee on a National Integrity Commission has conducted a seven-month inquiry examining the adequacy of current integrity and anti-corruption measures, and whether a national integrity commission should be established.
The committee received 46 submissions, along with more than 2000 campaign submissions. Five public hearings were held in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Canberra.
The committee thanks stakeholders who participated in the inquiry and informed the committee's work: the committee was greatly assisted by the knowledge and expertise of senior public officials, legal experts, academics, civil society organisations and members of the public.
The committee found that the current national integrity framework, which comprises numerous agencies, is complex and poorly understood.
This is not to suggest that individual agencies are doing a poor job. But the complexity of the framework does make it difficult for complainants to access and navigate.
The committee recommends that the government prioritises strengthening the national integrity framework to make it more coherent, comprehensible and accessible.
Committee members examined current integrity measures for parliamentarians and ministers.
It seems that these measures are not well known and more could be done to inform people about the limitations of parliamentary privilege and the role of the Privileges Committees.
The committee also discussed some examples of misconduct by parliamentarians, and concluded that it may be appropriate for the Parliament to appoint a Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner to provide advice on matters of ethics to senators and members.
The committee also recommended that the government strengthens the Statement of Ministerial Standards to improve the identification, investigation and punishment of breaches.
As part of the inquiry, the committee examined the role of parliamentary oversight committees in the national integrity framework.
It believes that committees, such as the Joint Committees on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and Law Enforcement, could be better supported by having access to a Parliamentary Counsel or Advisor to, for example, assist them to guide ongoing policy development on integrity and corruption issues.
Some stakeholders argued for a national integrity commission, while others argued that such an agency is not needed.
The committee has recommended that the government carefully consider establishing a Commonwealth agency with broad scope and jurisdiction to address integrity and corruption matters.
If the government establishes a new integrity agency, it is essential that matters such as the jurisdiction, powers, leadership, resourcing and oversight of the agency are given due consideration.
The committee has discussed these issues in its report, based on the experience of state anti-corruption agencies. Lessons can and should be learned from the state anti-corruption agencies, particularly with regard to the powers and purpose of such an agency, the careful selection of commissioners, and the judicious use of public hearings.
The work of this committee and that of the 2016 Senate Select Committee, as well as other activities such as the Open Government Partnership and research being undertaken by Griffith University, Flinders University, the University of the Sunshine Coast, Transparency International Australia, the NSW Ombudsman, the Queensland Integrity Commissioner and the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, should inform the future direction of integrity and anti-corruption measures in the Commonwealth public sector, and help the government in its deliberations.
The committee wants to ensure that the question of whether there should be a national integrity commission is progressed.
It therefore encourages the Senate to review the question of a national integrity commission—if such an agency has not been established in the meantime—after the OGP review of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and the Australian Federal Police Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre, and the conclusion of the Griffith University and Transparency International research.
I commend the report to the Senate.
In the tabling statement that I have incorporated, I have covered the main issues summarising the detail in the Senate committee report. The additional comments that I would like to cover are, of course, the thanks of all senators for the very hard work conducted by the secretariat. The vast volume of material that was covered and the substantive consideration of that material, I think, will leave most people following this particular issue fairly satisfied. The secretariat did an enormous job to bring together quite a vast array of material. Indeed, the senators participating in the inquiry have all done so with good faith and interest. We attempted to produce a report that would be satisfactory to the broad range of senators that participated in the inquiry. Indeed, I should pay particular thanks to Senator Smith, Senator Kakoschke-Moore and Senator Hinch, who put quite a deep amount of thought and consideration into the report. There was a fair amount of reworking to reach conclusions that we felt would adequately cover the material. That said, there are additional remarks, because I think that, whilst we all agreed there were some issues we could highlight about the adequacy of our national integrity framework and directions moving forward, different senators had different views about how that should progress.
Unfortunately, I do need to reflect on what may be an inadvertent breach of the standing orders in relation to an unauthorised disclosure, which was a press release by Senator Lee Rhiannon that was distributed this afternoon ahead of the tabling of this report. Senator Rhiannon has apologised to members of the committee for this disclosure, so I don't think, in itself, there would be a need for that matter to progress further. But there are also some issues around accuracy in that press release that I think I should reflect on in this tabling statement, because a number of issues were raised in it that simply are not accurate. This was a Labor-dominated select committee. There were two Labor members, two government members, Senator Hinch, Senator Kakoschke-Moore and Senator Lee Rhiannon. Regarding participation in the committee, it was, through my office, Labor's endeavours that ensured the Greens filled their position on the committee, which occurred only on the last sitting day before our first hearing. Had the Greens perhaps participated more deeply in this inquiry, then their report, which I have not yet had the chance to look at, might better reflect that, because, certainly, the press release does not.
The other inadequacy in the press release is that it underplays the information provided to the committee about the open government partnership—Labor's view is that a genuine open government partnership, which was what we in government had signed on to, will help us progress this issue in a very significant way—and in doing so it misrepresents the committee report. It is unfortunate that it's only in seeing this press release that I discovered that the Greens were making a dissenting report. Committee members discussed the approach we would take with this report. It was my understanding that all senators had agreed to the general report and would be making additional comments, but it seems that we misunderstood Senator Rhiannon's intentions. Again, that's unfortunate, because I think, as a whole, the process has reflected good faith and a deep desire to work together to progress parliamentary integrity, and I think the recommendations of the committee do indicate such.
In the brief time available to me, I would like to comment on what I think is a very key, considered piece of work by the Senate Select Committee on a National Integrity Commission. The work of this report has been part of what is the constant review of our integrity framework, a process through which transparency and accountability is assured. Being in a constant state of review and vigilance is appropriate and necessary when considering anti-corruption and pro-integrity measures in our national framework. In this work, we must prioritise strengthening our accountability mechanisms. A key recommendation of our report is for the report to continue this process of review.
At the Commonwealth level we have a strong network of many specialised agencies that prevent, target and investigate corruption. The work of these agencies has earned high praise from many of the witnesses who appeared before our inquiry. An issue inherent to a multiagency approach is its complexity. It's vital that our national integrity framework is accessible and easily understood so that anyone who witnesses corrupt behaviour is encouraged to report it. There must be no disincentive to report malfeasance. This is rightly a priority for the government, and it's important that the framework evolves appropriately. There have been calls for a revolutionary approach rather than an evolutionary one—a new agency with investigative powers that duplicates the work of the existing system. On the evidence presented to this inquiry, such an approach is far from warranted. Many are quick to point to one instance or another of corruption or malpractice at a federal level and to draw the conclusion that a new body with the jurisdiction of an anti-corruption commission is necessary. But—
Senator Smith, it being 7.20 pm, pursuant to order, I intend to call the Clerk. Do you seek leave to continue your remarks?
I do.
Leave is granted.
In the final hours of the 2013 election, speaking live from the Penrith football stadium, Tony Abbott stared down the barrel of the camera and promised the Australian people—and we all remember this very clearly—that there would be no budget cuts to the ABC or SBS. 'No cuts to education,' he said, 'no cuts to health; no change to pensions; no change to the GST; and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.' In less than nine months, Australia learnt exactly how much this eleventh-hour pledge and the words of both the Abbott and Turnbull governments were truly worth.
Despite their promise, the Abbott and Turnbull coalition governments cut the ABC's funding by $355 million over five years in their first budget. But that wasn't enough. They then cut funding even further in the 2016 budget. Remember? 'No cuts to ABC or SBS.' The Australian public has been duped by this. One doesn't need the ABC RMIT Fact Check to see that this election promise was not just a broken promise; it was shattered, with the shards swept under the rug in the hope that nobody would notice. The Australian public did notice. Undoubtedly, since that time, it has become a pledge that the other side wish the member for Warringah had never made.
So how can the Australian people place their faith in this government—the very same government that looked Australia in the eye and promised to pursue a positive future for their trusted public broadcasters but didn't even wait a year before shattering that promise? Now the Turnbull government pushes for the removal of the two-out-of-three rule while cutting deals to cut funding to the ABC, and they expect the Australian people—and Labor—to fall for it. We certainly will not. We will stand with the Australian people. Labor will continue to stand up and support the best interests of the Australian people and our media industry by supporting the reforms that the sector has asked for time and time again, not by further undermining our public broadcasters and not by approving the government's disastrous plan to remove this two-out-of-three rule.
This direct assault on our public broadcasters—the ABC and SBS—in this ridiculous deal just confirms how low the Turnbull government is prepared to stoop. It is bemusing and shocking to think that this is Malcolm Turnbull, the same person who, in the past, one would never have expected to behave, and indeed perform, as a member of parliament, in this way. But he has proven that he is utterly desperate and bereft of integrity by bowing to One Nation's demands in order to scrape these flawed media ownership changes through this parliament. It really is the epitome of the chaos inside the Turnbull government that it is now hell-bent on destroying the diversity of the media industry in this country, which is already—and we must never forget this—one of the most concentrated media markets in the world.
Not only will they repeal this two-out-of-three, cross-media ownership rule; they will hand over an unprecedented concentration of media power to a privileged few commercial operators. It is clear that doing that is an attack on the ABC, in particular, and will diminish the independence of our national broadcaster. On top of that, we've heard of the Turnbull government's mysterious grant of some $30 million to Fox Sports. What does this prove? Again, I think this proves that the Minister for Communications is incapable of anything but doing some secretive, backdoor deal-making when it comes to our media laws.
I understand that Senator Hanson made it clear that she would be gunning for the ABC's funding. We know she doesn't like the ABC. But, with Malcolm Turnbull proving to be such an unfortunately weak leader, it seems that One Nation have ended up calling the shots when it comes to negotiating the ABC's budget next year. Both the Turnbull government and One Nation insist on ignoring the fact that the ABC in Australia is one of the most trusted institutions. They completely ignore the love and support that the Australian community has for its ABC, its national broadcaster—something we all should be proud of. Instead of that, they want to gut it. They want to undermine it. They want to do deals behind closed doors. It is simply lazy politics and it flies in the face of the idea that it's in the public interest. They ignore the fact that Australians value their ABC. Australians don't want their government gutting their ABC.
Why does the Australian community have that sense of ownership over its ABC? Because it's our national broadcaster. It lives by a charter of reflecting Australian stories and reflecting who we are as a nation. The last thing a federal government should be doing is gutting an institution that the Australian people trust and love and want to enjoy through seeing themselves on the screen. Where does this leave us as a nation, if this government is going to continue down this path of ripping millions upon millions upon hundreds of millions of dollars out of our ABC? It is simply ridiculous and shameful that this government is doing this by trying to get these media reforms through after doing dirty deals with those crossbench senators.
The Turnbull government, as I said initially, has for a very long time delayed the vital broadcasting reforms that are needed in the media industry—and we acknowledge those that are needed—choosing instead to hold its reform package to ransom over its obsession with repealing the two-out-of-three rule. I think the government needs to accept the will of the people and move on. There is no gamesmanship in the opposition to the further consolidation of power of the dominant voices in the Australian media. Instead Labor is standing up for the public interests of our great democracy by opposing this repeal rule.
When our shadow minister for communications, Michelle Rowland, called publicly for a thorough examination of the state of the Australian media landscape, Minister Fifield rejected these suggestions and claimed that 'all the relevant facts are already known'. This was despite the fact that the last Productivity Commission inquiry into broadcasting reported on was in the year 2000. Clearly, the facts are not already known, which is why so many disparate reviews and inquiries have popped up to fill that evidentiary void created by Minister Fifield's inaction—an inaction that has gone on now for four years. After four years, this is what we end up with as legislation. That's how long it has taken for this government to conduct a comprehensive and evidence based approach to media reform. Instead, we have chaos and backroom deals with no progress to show.
The Australian Labor Party is extremely disappointed that the Turnbull government has not secured more in the way of public interest considerations in return for the abolition of licence fees. It is imperative that Australians reap a return on the use by broadcasters of the radio frequency spectrum—a valuable public resource that is essential to the digital economy. Despite the fact that Labor regards the Turnbull government's measures as an inadequate and piecemeal attempt at media reform, it is the unfortunate truth that we must take what little progress we can get out of this lazy effort made by this government, which has taken almost four years to make any progress on broadcasting reform at all.
Labor supports several of these measures of the bill because, in truth, it was Labor that proposed them in the first place, having led the way on broadcast licensing fees, gambling advertising restrictions and funding to support the broadcasting of women's sport. But, when the Turnbull government announced that it would provide $30 million over four years to support women's and niche sports, Labor noted the government's support for women and niche sports but also noted that under a Labor government the funding would have been directed to the ABC. The ABC has been broadcasting women's sports for years—a free-to-air platform available for all, rather than a platform only available to 30 per cent of households. So let's be really clear here: taxpayer's money—$30 million of it—has gone to a pay TV broadcaster that only reaches 30 per cent of Australian households. That is disgraceful. It should have gone to our public broadcaster where it is available for every member of the public. That would be in the public interest.
But this wasn't about providing millions of dollars that would benefit the public and be in the public's interest to watch women's sport. No; this was about doing a deal with Fox. This was about commercial interests. Prime Minister Turnbull needs to realise he's a Prime Minister; he's not a businessman. He's not doing deals as a businessman with other commercial entities; he's doing a deal with our taxpayers' dollars—the dollars of the workers of this country who pay tax and expect their government to deliver that money for the public good. It is absolutely bizarre that the government gave $30 million to Fox Sports. There are so many people in my electorate that I know do not have pay TV and will not be able to access women's sport because of this deal done by this government. That's how out of touch they are. Do they not realise that the majority of the Australian people don't subscribe to Fox TV? What are they going to do next? Will they start advertising on behalf of Fox, telling people to sign up? It is absolutely absurd.
These are the flaws that we find in relation to media reform in this country. I've made it very clear that Labor will support those good measures because they're the measures that Labor put forward in the first place all those years ago. But we will not support the stupid measures that are in place, such as the two-out-of-three rule that absolutely dilutes any media diversity in this country. We will always stand up for the ABC and SBS, our public broadcasters, that do so much to tell the stories of this great multicultural nation, to tell our Indigenous stories and to tell all of the different stories that make up who we are as Australian people. That's what the Australian people want to see in their national broadcaster. That's why Labor stands as we do on this bill. (Time expired)
I, too, would like to make a contribution to this important debate. I suppose it's not hard to take a line on the position of One Nation with respect to this debate. I've been reading newspapers for a very, very long time and there's always been a variety of views about the veracity or the backgrounding or where people are coming from. The Murdoch press has probably enjoyed either a good relationship or an infamous one with some sections of politics and the community. When a party comes into this place and attacks the ABC and SBS in such a virulent, despicable manner, it's quite surprising. I don't agree with everything the ABC reports, I don't agree with everything SBS reports—and the same with Channel Ten, Channel Nine and all of the other media organisations out there. That there is a diversity of views expressed is part of the strength of our media arena, but it doesn't seem to sit well with the One Nation party. They seem to be on a vehement crusade against organisations which traditionally have been well respected by the taxpayers of this country. In previous attacks, the ABC has been able to defend itself with things like the eight-cents-a-day campaign. Suffice to say, the One Nation Party seems to have taken up a very virulent position against the ABC and SBS, which doesn't bode well for the media sector.
Let's not forget that One Nation is only here with the numbers it has because the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, in his wisdom, had a double dissolution, which had the effect of introducing a number of additional crossbench senators. Some would say that is democracy at work—but, pragmatically, it's a once-in-30-years event: where there's a double dissolution and the quota senators must achieve is halved. It didn't turn out that well for the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull and now, when he has any legislation with any element of contention, he has to do a number of extraordinary deals. Senators on this side of the chamber do not know the extent of these deals—we very rarely see the extent of any consultation. The government have an agenda which is anti-SBS and anti-ABC, and they're pursuing it with all of their collective strength. I don't think that bodes well for media diversity in Australia. The reality is that, in order to get legislation through this parliament and through this Senate, they have to make accommodations. The accommodations they're making in the One Nation area do not sit well with this side of the chamber. I think that's perfectly clear from the current record.
But it's not limited to the One Nation group on the crossbench. The government will have to make accommodations with the Nick Xenophon party. I have a fairly good relationship with Senator Xenophon: I have a laugh and a joke with him from time to time; I vehemently disagree with him on the odd occasion. The reality is that he is a consummate media player. I often joke in South Australia that his relationship with one particular TV station is such that, in the event of anything happening anywhere in the world, there would be a news report and the expert they bring in to deal with it would be Senator Xenophon. I distinctly recall that there was a problem with FIFA about bribery and corruption and whether Qatar had acted appropriately and whether even the Australian bid had been handled appropriately. Not recognising Senator Xenophon as a prolific sportsman or a past expert on the matter, he became their go-to person in the event that there was a bribery and corruption scandal in FIFA.
He has turned media appearances into an art form. He's turned up in the middle of the Adelaide mall in a donkey suit, and has really made an art form out of media exposure. But what's not apparent in all of this is that some of the transactions that occur with Senator Xenophon, and perhaps even with One Nation, are a quid pro quo type of arrangement. They don't actually benefit the media sector; there is a transaction involved which gives them an advantage in some other area. This is really becoming quite apparent, particularly with the Xenophon party. We know that there were massive company tax cuts in March as a result of a deal with the Xenophon party. We know that students, parents and teachers have seen cuts in school funding in June.
We know that Senator Xenophon is doing what people may well be expected to do, which is capitalise on a position of leverage in the parliament and take advantage of the fact that the Prime Minister called a double dissolution and he didn't get the result he wanted—he got a result that was less favourable—and he's now in a position where he has to dig in, dig deep, and cough up to get any of these government positions through this parliament. When they make these accommodations, I dare say sometimes they might even have to hold their breath and stop smelling for a while because they do not really sit well.
One Nation are wanting an inquiry and are supporting the changes of media laws in return for that inquiry, which has the potential to gut the operations of the ABC and SBS. I heard Senator Hanson say that people come in the chamber and try to use her popularity to get a bit of leverage by criticising her position. I think I move around the backblocks of this country as much as Senator Hanson—although, perhaps not because I don't have a plane that was donated to me by a reliable supporter or donor. But I go in a car and I do travel around, and I always rely on the ABC for the information. If I want information on news, it's the ABC. If I want information on road conditions or weather conditions, invariably your car radio will get you an ABC station. And if you stay out in those regional areas, you get Imparja and you get the ABC. That's basically what you get. There are about 600,000 people in the centre of Australia, and Imparja is the commercial station and, apart from that, it's the ABC.
In my former life, when I did have a bit of media exposure and I actively went out and sought it, I would often get calls from places as far flung as Groote Island and Ceduna from people who had heard on the ABC about some event that I'd been involved in. That is the extent of their carriage—from Groote Eylandt down to Ceduna and all the way round this great country they are supplying a wonderful service to Australian taxpayers and people who live in regional communities.
On the one hand, Senator Hanson is saying they're not spending enough money in regional areas and pointing to the fact that they must be spending too much in the city. I don't really get that, because you need to produce stuff where it's efficient to produce it and then you need to broadcast it where people can hear it. I think they do a stunningly good job of producing effective programs and broadcasting them, geographically, fantastically. I don't think there's an Australian in any regional area that doesn't have a great, deep and abiding respect for the contribution of the ABC. Certainly, The Nationals would be of this view. I find Landline one of the most informative programs that you can possibly watch. It gets out and goes into some really interesting areas and produces high-quality journalism.
You can't sit on this side of the chamber or on that side of the chamber and not feel aggrieved from time to time about the contribution of media organisations. We all have our disagreements about who is the best and most effective but, on balance, we've had a respectable outcome. But this legislation will make it worse. The print media is writing for someone who has completed grade 7 or grade 8. They've got to get the story up in the first paragraph and you've got to give little bits of information after that, with plenty of photos, short grabs and big letters.
People are getting their news from the talkback radio station at 5.30, 6.30 or 7.30. The person has read the paper, and then they start talking on the radio about the articles in the paper. People are driving to work. Very few people are even buying newspapers anymore. If you look at the circulation of newspapers in Australia, you'd be astounded at how small it is. I know that our own august journal alludes to the fact there are plenty of people reading it online, but the actual distribution numbers are not good. I know, because I go for a walk in the morning, how many people in my street get the paper delivered now. It used to be everybody, but that is no longer the case. People are waking up to Facebook, their smart phones, iPads, laptops and radio stations.
It's been very sad to notice over the last number of years the number of good journalists who have been made redundant. I saw something recently about AAAPT closing down yet another base, another operation, which used to be a good training ground for fledgling journalists. When you travel in regional Australia, you meet the journalist who does the layout for the country newspaper, sells the advertising for the country newspaper, does the stories and the photography for the country newspaper and collates all of the regional football, netball and softball results—which, in the main, is why the country regional newspaper gets read. People buy it or, if it's available for free, pick it up because they want to see who won the football and whether their handicap was exceeded in the golf section.
We really are in a difficult situation with media per se. But it's not just Australia that's in that position. We all work quite interesting hours and we're away from home a fair bit. Personally, I almost can't stand TV. As soon as I put a TV program on, they'll be putting in seven or eight ads every hour or half-hour, and I forget whether I'm watching ads or the program. The reason for that is they're so bereft of advertising revenue. These changes are not going to make anything better. The fact they've had to do these extraordinary deals with One Nation and the Xenophon party and maybe others is not a great harbinger of good times to come in the media sector.
If someone could point to anywhere where there's been increasing employment of journalists, I'd be really grateful. All we seem to be seeing is a reduction in the number of journalists, and that is an extremely bad thing. You need independently-minded, qualified, investigative reporters to hold this side of the chamber, that side of the chamber and those people on the crossbenches accountable. If we don't have the people skilled, employed and invested in doing that work, we will become less as a society. We know that true, good journalistic practices keep a decent democracy honest. We know that there have been hundreds of examples of good investigative journalism which have rewarded democracy per se. But we're not going to get it if we allow concentration. We're not going to get it if we allow the One Nation party to go on, for want of a better word, a witch-hunt or vendetta against the ABC. It won't happen. I can understand that at times they may be disgruntled about the coverage that their party gets, but that's a democracy. That's what democracies do. People are entitled to research a subject and come up with a view, and an editor will make a decision as to whether it's made public. That's simple and clear.
I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan—probably having more grey hair than you—that I used to be a copy boy for the NT News, after school from four o'clock in the afternoon to 10 o'clock. My job was to punctuate the copy that came out of the telex machine. I did learn to punctuate it, cut it and put it on a bit of paper, and it went to the copy people. I learnt back then that the copy went in after the advertising had been put in. The advertising on the page is what paid for the operation, and what was written came second. That advertising has dried up, so guess what? There are no more opportunities to write the copy. I think that's the reality of what we have here.
Some campaigners on our side of the table suggested we do some advertising in the Adelaide Advertiser. Personally, I thought, 'Why? Who's going to read it? It would be there for a day. Maybe you should be putting your advertising on Facebook.' These are the opportunities which I'm not particularly familiar with but people say they work much better. When people are searching for a news item, a news article or a particular view on the world, up pops some advertising on their smart phone. That doesn't involve a tremendous number of journalists going around investigating and putting their point of view forward.
We are in a really difficult situation. The government says, 'Look, 1993 was the last time it changed. We've got to get this better. We've been trying to repeal two-out-of-three for the last 18 months, and we haven't been able to do so on merit.' So what's the answer? We could do a series of deals with the industry or a deal or two with One Nation and Nick Xenophon, including a grant to Fox Sports. I've seen Fox Sports. I heard Senator Singh make a very pertinent comment. I wouldn't buy it personally, and I don't know a lot of people who are getting a tremendous amount out of their Foxtel or their Fox Sports coverage. It has obviously penetrated, but the reality is that you can go on the internet nowadays and you can use all of the alternative streaming mechanisms.
Senator Fifield said that the NBN is running along swimmingly well. I know one family that has a good connection, and that's my household. When I want to stream something in my household, I know that I can get enough download speed to be able to stream whatever I want, subject perhaps to making a small payment through an iTunes account or something like that, and I don't need to go to a provider like Fox Sports to watch those things. A lot of people in Australia would argue that free-to-air, particularly in the most popular areas of sports broadcasting, is what should be maintained. This legislation probably doesn't do a lot in that area, but why would we have given $30 million to Fox Sports? Where was the documentation and the accountability in relation to that agreement? The FOI application by the ABC established there was no documentation. If that's the case, that is probably a matter that a good investigative journalist could write a story about and perhaps even get some people to read, and perhaps there would be some questions in the community as to what is happening with taxpayer money with respect to these outcomes.
The issues of diversity, ownership and control are really serious issues for Australia's voting public. There have been polls that show the majority—61 per cent of voters across every demographic—disapproves of changing the media ownership laws to allow a single company to control a newspaper, a TV network and a radio network all in the same area. That would seem to be almost common sense, but allowing that level of control would control the message. It would be against the shareholder's interest to have a radio station going on a different line to the TV station or the newspaper going on a different line to the TV station and the radio station. We know how it works. We see it in Adelaide. We're probably the most concentrated market of all. We've seen our national broadcast news produced in Melbourne and produced in Sydney. What used to be done in Adelaide is no longer done there. We are concentrated and it's not a good thing.
In the last couple of seconds I have left, I want to reiterate: it was a double dissolution that delivered this Senate and it will go down in history as not being a good decision. Part of the arrangements that are made—the transactions—will not stand up to the light of day.
I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017. This is the Turnbull government's second attempt at media reform, which has now been almost four years in the making. Labor's position on this issue has been crystal clear for quite some time. If we look back at reform that has been done in the past, it has certainly always been done appropriately from this side of the chamber.
We support the majority of items that are in these bills, except for the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule, which is ill-conceived and unjustified and risks undermining Australia's democracy. Labor will support both of the bills before us as long as the provisions relating to the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule are omitted. We have one amendment on the table in this place to save the two-out-of-three rule in order to maintain media diversity in this country. Labor understands the regulatory framework is outdated and in need of reform, but we have one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, and making it even more concentrated is not the solution.
The way that the Turnbull government has handled this whole process has been shambolic, but it is now part of their trademark make-up that they are incompetent. We know they're divided. As a government, they're renowned for not being able to bring good legislation to the table without having to do their dirty deals. The Turnbull government has been trying to repeal two-out-of-three cross-media control for 18 months now. They have filibustered on this bill, and now all of a sudden they want to get it through tonight. These bills have been listed for debate—in the House or in the Senate—on no less than 10 or 12 occasions but have fallen flat each time. Unfortunately, this government has mismanaged the chamber process time and time again. We're sitting late tonight because they were filibustering. While they were trying to do their deals with the Pauline Hanson group and Nick Xenophon's network of people, they filibustered and wasted time in this chamber. Hence, we're here tonight.
This out-of-touch government have resorted to a series of trade-offs and backroom deals to try to ram this through tonight, including the grant of $30 million to Fox Sports. Let's not beat around the bush; there's been an attack, breaching the promise that they gave before the election that there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS. But, because they rely on Pauline Hanson and her votes in this place, they will bend over backwards for her. Hence, we are seeing an attack on the ABC. Today we've seen just how desperate the government are to get these bills through this place. We know they're dysfunctional. They're in disarray. They have filibustered, and now they've pulled their speakers from the list as part of their attempt to expedite this process. If our speakers don't all have an opportunity to speak tonight—and we're yet to go through the committee stage—no doubt the government will guillotine the debate.
Media diversity certainly is not a plaything. Labor is the only party that has refused to enter into the mess of trade-offs and backroom deals on media reform, because we understand how important it is to this country. Had the government dropped their flawed plan to repeal the two-out-of-three rule, they could have passed the majority of these changes through this place a long time ago. Twice now Labor has moved amendments to save the two-out-of-three rule and let the rest of the government's media reform package go through, and twice the coalition government have rejected Labor's support. Here we are in the spring session of 2017 and Minister Fifield is still cutting dodgy deals, horsetrading and turning the whole process into a dog's breakfast.
The government is in complete disarray in this policy area. In August, the Turnbull government proved how little integrity it has by bowing to One Nation's demands. That's how desperate this out-of-touch government is to scrape through with these flawed media ownership changes and get them through this place. As Senator Gallacher said in his speech, this has been brought about by the demonstration of a Prime Minister who doesn't understand his role. He is so desperate to be Prime Minister and to keep his job that he rushed to a double dissolution; hence, we now have a crossbench who were duly elected under that double-D. Now he will do whatever it takes and make whatever deals he needs to with Pauline Hanson to get her votes and get his legislation through.
Any of us who have been in this chamber for any length of time know and respect the fact that Senator Nick Xenophon makes valuable contributions to this chamber, but he is 'Teflon Nick'; that's who he is. He wants nothing to stick to him. He does his deals with the government. He's supporting a deal that Pauline Hanson has done with the government to attack the ABC. At the same time, the Xenophon group are supporting this legislation—no doubt for whatever other trade-offs he's been able to acquire for his own interests.
Senator Hanson has made it clear from the time that she set foot in this place—and she's repeated it time and time again—that she was going after the ABC. Now we know how deep her contempt is for the ABC. What we've got now is a desperate Prime Minister who will do whatever it takes to keep his job, and is allowing Pauline Hanson to run the government's agenda. But this government is in chaos. It's hell-bent on destroying media diversity in this country. We have come to expect nothing less from a desperate government.
Despite promising no cuts to the ABC before the 2013 election, the Abbott-Turnbull government cut ABC funding by $355 million over five years, then cut it further in the 2016 budget. How many times have we had those on the other side come into this chamber and say, 'We will keep our promises'—just like they did over the survey on marriage equality. They said, 'That was a promise we took to the last election.' They will stick by that, but when it comes to sticking to the commitments that they gave to the Australian people—not the deals that Malcolm Turnbull has done within the Liberal caucus to keep his job—they have gone back on their word.
Further to that, the Turnbull government's grant of $30 million to Fox Sports proves the Minister for Communications is incapable of anything but backdoor deals—that is the only way he can get this legislation through, rather than it being good policy. Last month, the Prime Minister took it upon himself to tell us how strong he is. Well, Mr Turnbull, sorry to be the one to tell you yet again, but you're not a strong leader. The Australian people know that you're not the Prime Minister that they thought that they were going to get. You are a weak leader, and you're so desperate that you will do anything to keep the votes of Pauline Hanson's One Nation. In fact, what else do they have in store? What else, through these negotiations, has already been decided about next year's budget? Will there be further cuts to the ABC?
After all, somebody who represents the state of Tasmania, like me, knows only too well how important the ABC has been to the Tasmanian community. We're a regional community. There are some remote areas, but there are certainly many regional areas. I have seen over a long period of time that it has been only the ABC who have been able to demonstrate to the Australian community that women's sport is worth watching, because they are the ones who make sure that women's sport does have some airtime.
We know that those opposite have a bias against the ABC. They seem to think that they're the target of unfair media. Well, what comes around goes around. That's the reality of politics. We know the investment in Australian drama that the ABC has made. We have the Nationals come in here time and time again trying to say to people on this side of the chamber: 'Don't go out and talk to people in the regions. You don't understand country people.' Yet they're supporting this legislation. I mean, come on!
Yesterday Senator Hanson said in this place, 'This bill is very important to a lot of people,' and that the industry have stated they wish to see this bill passed. But I ask: at what cost? Media diversity is not something to be traded. The Australian public will be the ones to suffer. Rather than crafting media reform properly, the government—who don't seem to be able to do that, and they have been in government now for four years—have chosen to take Pauline Hanson's advice over the advice of their own department or regulator when it comes to media reform. This is utterly desperate and lacking in integrity. This again describes how the government are seen by the Australian people.
The government are desperate. They've done their deals. I think it needs to be put on the record what Pauline Hanson has been able to achieve with this government—her attack on the ABC. The deal Senator Xenophon has done needs to be to exposed to the Australian people, because he can't do these backroom deals and then go back to South Australia and claim that he is clean of these dirty deals and that he supports the ABC when, in fact, he is supporting the legislation in which Pauline Hanson has been able to drive the Turnbull government into further attacking the ABC.
Those opposite in the Turnbull government, particularly the Nationals, cry crocodile tears over the delivery of media services to rural and regional Australia but then turn around and slash the ABC's funding and cut this dodgy deal with One Nation. But Senator Hanson is not the only one calling the shots with this incompetent government; the Greens are also lined up to do a deal with the Turnbull government and trade away media diversity in exchange for more funding for public broadcasters. The Greens haven't named their price and have gone a bit quiet on this issue, but, let me tell you, no amount of public funding will counterbalance the overwhelming concentration of media power created by the abolition of the two-out-of-three media ownership rule. They will live to regret this because they will be beholden and will have to live with the consequences of their vote on these bills here tonight.
Labor believes that Australians deserve a vibrant national broadcaster as well as strong commercial broadcasters. This is not an either/or proposition. Labor are a party of principle, and our position on media diversity is not up for trade or for being any part of these backroom deals. As I've said, we need to expose Senator Xenophon, because he can't wash his hands of the fact that he is responsible for unleashing an unprecedented attack on the ABC by joining One Nation in agreeing to repeal the two-out-of-three rule. Senator Xenophon maintains that he won't undermine the ABC or the SBS, but there is simply no denying that he is giving the green light to the One Nation-Turnbull government's plan to undermine the ABC and the SBS.
Senator Xenophon claims to care about the ABC, but he supports this deal that's been done in a back room. He can't then go out to people in South Australia and paint himself as some saviour. He has to go back ultimately to South Australia, his electorate, and he has to be accountable for the decisions that he is going to make here in this chamber—and his fingerprints are going to be all over not only the selling-out of the ABC and the SBS but also the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. Senator Hanson, with her numbers here in this chamber, and Senator Xenophon are supporting this, as I've said. They will be responsible for undermining media diversity across Australia, handing unprecedented media power to a privileged few and permitting further consolidation of Australia's already highly concentrated media, including in South Australia's capital of Adelaide, where media diversity is low. If Senator Xenophon were serious about supporting the Australian media industry, he would have joined Labor in demanding that the Turnbull government dump its flawed proposal to repeal the two-out-of-three rule, while letting the remainder of the reform measures through parliament. Senator Xenophon is acknowledged as someone who will do whatever deals he can to ensure that there is political advantage in it for himself and now his party. But we all know that, sooner or later, a Teflon frypan does wear out.
The Minister for Communications is used to backing himself into a corner. When he was the minister for aged care, we called it the 'Fifield fluffle'. The Minister for Communications is certainly in a fluffle today and has practically been in hiding since making this dirty pact with Pauline Hanson's One Nation about the ABC. But he's been forced to the table on this today. Senator Fifield owns his attack on the ABC and he has some serious questions to answer. Is there a secret side agreement to cut ABC funding next year? Is the requirement for fair and balanced coverage designed to give voice to those who don't have a voice in the community—the holocaust deniers, the climate change sceptics and the antivaxxers? Further, is the competitive neutrality inquiry aimed diminishing the ABC and the SBS to mere market failure broadcasters? Does the establishment of a second advisory council prove that the Turnbull government has no confidence in the ABC board and management?
It beggars belief that the Turnbull government would slash ABC funding only to turn around and complain that the national broadcaster isn't doing enough for rural and regional Australia. If you think that the people who live in rural and regional Australia are going to accept the cuts that you are making and then buy your argument that the ABC aren't delivering, then you're fooling yourselves. This dodgy deal that's been done is, quite frankly, one of the worst that I've seen in this place. It just goes to the fact that the government are so desperate, so shambolic, so divided, that they will do deals with the devil, almost, to get their legislation through. For 18 months they've been trying. As I said, it's been listed both in the House and here countless times, and they haven't been able to do their deal. Tonight we are here debating something that could have been done a long time ago if they had just accepted the amendment in relation to the two-out-of-three rule. But, as usual, what we see is an incompetent government trying to ram it through tonight, without any warning that we were going to be sitting late. Of course, we knew, when they started pulling their speakers off the list, that they had done their dirty deals with some of those on the crossbench. So we're here tonight. I'm actually looking forward to the committee stage of this bill. But, once again, I think this government is underestimating the Australian people. I think they're underestimating what the ABC means for ensuring that there is balance in the media in this country.
I rise tonight to make a contribution on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill, specifically around accessibility. This is an opportunity to fix the ongoing, disappointing approach that we take to the accessibility of our media for those who are deaf or hard of hearing and those who are blind or vision impaired. Unfortunately, most of our electronic media today is inaccessible. This hasn't been addressed, and it needs to be addressed urgently. We have an opportunity under this so-called reform to meet our commitments under the National Disability Strategy and our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Tonight I want to address my comments around captioning and audio description—audio description for those who are blind or vision impaired; and captioning for those who are deaf or hard of hearing. The first area I want to look at is captioning. Of particular concern recently is the increasing number of exemptions to the obligation to provide accessible content—in this context, captioning—for broadcast programs, as outlined in the Broadcasting Services Act. I'm sure the deaf community has raised this issue with others in this place, not just me; they are urging us to stem these exemptions.
The act currently outlines provider responsibility for providing captions on free-to-air and subscription programs and the expected standard of quality in the provision of captioning on broadcast programs. I've been advised that between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2016 broadcasters made 279 requests for exemptions or target reduction orders on captioned programs on the grounds that providing these services is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Do you know how many of those applications were denied? Just 38. So, even with the limited services that are available, broadcasters are getting around those provisions. These requests have resulted in 85 per cent of exemptions and target reduction orders being implemented, irrespective of the community's response in objecting to broadcaster requests. This number is growing and is inching closer to 90 per cent in the current time frame—from 1 July 2016 to the present day.
Access to information is essential for every Australian, not just those who don't have a hearing or vision impairment. Captions also have a much wider appeal than people would expect. For example, it's reported that non-English-speaking citizens; people with dyslexia; people in noisy environments such as shopping centres, airport lounges, pubs and hotels; children with disability; and ageing citizens also get a lot of value out of captioning. And I must say I'm one of those people who do use captioning when it's available.
The exemptions and target reduction orders are therefore counterproductive to an inclusive Australia. As we all know, the licence fees have been changed. It's a $70 million saving for broadcasters, so that savings can be geared to other areas. Deaf Australia and other community organisations working on issues around deafness and hearing impairment have been campaigning very strongly to get some of those savings being made by the broadcasters directed at making our services more accessible.
I would like to point out that Australia has an obligation under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We are a party to that convention. We also have a number of obligations under the National Disability Strategy to improve accessibility. Deaf Australia, for one, is seeking to ensure that the Broadcasting Services Act is amended to repeal the mechanism that allows broadcasters to seek exemptions or target reduction orders on captioning. It wants to ensure that consumers who need this essential service will not be neglected, and will be equal citizens in an inclusive Australia. It also wants to see—and it advocates strongly for—the use of Auslan in some TV programs. It's absolutely essential that we make sure that our programs are accessible to those with a hearing impairment or who are deaf.
Then—and I have spoken about this issue in this chamber previously—there is the need for audio description. There is no requirement for audio description to be included on free-to-air television, let alone subscription TV. Currently, none of the free-to-air networks provide this service. For those who do not know what audio description is—although hopefully you do, since I've talked about it in this place on numerous occasions—it is delivered as a narration on a separate track to describe visual elements of a television program during natural pauses in dialogue. It is entirely different to listen to a TV program that is being described, rather than just trying to rely on the dialogue in a program. As we know, a lot is communicated visually in television programs. That is entirely missed if audio description is not available. This means that people who are blind or vision-impaired do not get access to television. In a lot of cases, when they're not getting audio description, they simply don't get what's going on.
I would like to foreshadow a second reading amendment that reads:
At the end of the motion, add, "but the Senate is of the opinion that all free-to-air television broadcasters should use the financial relief afforded by the reduction in licensing fees to offer audio description services for people who are blind or vision-impaired, and ensure provisioning of captioning services on all broadcast programs thus aligning with the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020, which calls for all broadcast programs to be fully captioned."
Senator Siewert—
I'm not moving that; I'm foreshadowing it.
But my advice is: given that there's no other amendment before the chair, you can move it.
Senator Hanson-Young also has a second reading amendment. As the portfolio holder, I would rather she moved her amendment, if that's okay.
My advice is that, in that case, Senator Hanson-Young should have spoken first. You can't foreshadow in this case.
Senator Hanson-Young also has a second reading amendment.
Are you moving your amendment now, Senator Siewert, or are you withdrawing it?
If I withdraw, it means that we can't deal with it.
That's correct.
I'll move it then. I move:
That at the end to motion, add:
" but the Senate is of the opinion that all free-to-air television broadcasters should use the financial relief afforded by the reduction in licensing fees to offer audio description services for people who are blind or vision-impaired, and ensure provisioning of captioning services on all broadcast programs aligning thus with the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020, which calls for all broadcast programs to be fully captioned".
This second reading amendment is about using some of the money that the free-to-air stations will save as a result of the government's decision to invest in audio description and in captioning. As I'm sure this place is aware, there has been a trial of audio description through the ABC, and I know that people got a huge amount of value out of that process. Australia is a developed country. We should be meeting our commitments; we should be working with other nations to make sure that we are developing processes that deliver services such as audio description and captioning. As I have reminded this place before, Vision Australia has done research that indicates that up to two-thirds of their clients do not have access to the internet and just 17 per cent have access to a smartphone. So they can't rely on online streaming to deliver audio description, as they are often told. We shouldn't be condemning people to what they consider to be a second-class service, which, in any case, many of them can't access if they have to rely just on online services.
Blindness and advocacy organisations have been calling for free-to-air networks to commit to extra funding for these accessibility features on their TV channels so all consumers can have equal access to content in news and current affairs programs and the other programs that everybody else has access to. If we are genuine about broadcasting reform, we should be making sure that people who are blind, vision-impaired, deaf or hard of hearing have access as well. Australia made a commitment, through our National Disability Strategy, to ensure accessibility. Not only are we are standing in the way of that, but we are, in some instances, going backwards, because broadcasters are seeking exemptions to those accessibility rules. That needs to stop; there needs to be reform. I urge the government to take action, to ensure that those who are blind or vision-impaired or deaf or hard of hearing also have access to electronic media, to the media, to free-to-air TV and to subscription channels. We're committed to make it happen.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to speak about the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. This issue has caused us in Pauline Hanson's One Nation party to examine our preconceptions and misconceptions. We have done what we do well—listened: to media companies, to regional communities, to city communities, to journalists, to media analysts, to everyday Australians and to any political party that wants to share their views. This process illustrates the way we operate: to listen, to invite views, to reconsider the issues, to evolve our views as we learn, to be practical and to protect our nation's interests, as well as the interests of the people affected and of every Australian.
Initially, I have to confess, I thought this was an issue about the Murdoch empire but, as we delved into it, I realised it was about a far bigger and more powerful entity—government. All monopolies result from government regulation, and the biggest are government-owned and operated monopolies. We learnt about an entity far more powerful than Murdoch's News Corp, and this one is damaging. I'll tell you more. We learnt about the trends threatening media companies and journalists' jobs and driving substandard media companies out of business because they failed to respond to people's needs. We learnt about a revolution sweeping the world and becoming a force for freedom, liberating people from government control. We celebrate because it is proving, yet again, that the best regulator is the customer. I questioned my initial thinking and learnt a lot, and I want to share some of that with all who'll listen. Under the leadership of Senator Pauline Hanson and Senator Brian Burston, we have developed a response with the government that is good for regional Australia, good for our nation and good for media and good for journalists.
So is Murdoch the problem? No, he's not, despite what some on the left say. What we see today is a swirl of coalescing media across platforms such as newspaper, radio, TV, internet and subscription channels. That change is underway no matter what we want and whether we like it or not, and it's due to external factors, the internet and government. The weakness in media right now is due to three factors. The first is the internet—specifically Google and Facebook. The second is government regulation—and that regulation, as in all regulation, reduces the quantity of the service or product, reduces the quality of media and raises the cost of media. These regulations weaken institutions. These regulations have created a monster. The third one is that monster: the ABC.
Let's go to Google and Facebook. They're revolutionising media and communication, and the internet is placing the market power of choice in the hands of all people. I listened to a Commonwealth car driver a few months ago who worked in the Kimberley in the 1980s when, he told me, they had one ABC channel and one ABC radio channel. Now, he says happily, they have a huge range of media and entertainment from around the world.
These choices are destroying conventional newspaper companies, especially the biased ones such as Fairfax and The Guardian, who are both collapsing as customers wake up to their poor service that reflects the paper's bias and dishonesty. Consider Fairfax, who sent us a prepared statement saying:
For the record, Fairfax Media and most other major media companies do not give equal weight to the 'sides' on issues … including climate change—
they specifically mentioned climate change—
because it is false equivalency.
Fairfax says it believes the overwhelming scientific evidence that giving all sides an airing is 'skewing the debate'. Fairfax says clearly: 'This is Fairfax's position on climate change.' It is biased.
Their former environmental reporter and now editor, Ben Cubby, has been repeatedly unable to provide empirical evidence proving human cause of global climate variability, yet repeatedly spouts his nonsense. He is unaware of the basic drivers of the climate scam, such as Maurice Strong, who he'd never heard of and who fabricated global warming and the monster he created, the politically driven United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cubby's ignorance within Fairfax is destroying the company. Readers are abandoning Fairfax and The Guardian. This is why Fairfax, the dinosaur, is dying—self-inflicted. This is why Fairfax journos are the most threatened by the changes we face—the changes that are coming whether we like it or not. These dinosaurs cannot see that it is we who are trying to assist them. News Corp, though, perhaps shows a more professional response to the internet threat because it seems to be saying: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Not only has the internet provided immense choice, so have alternative media such as cable TV or subscription TV and new structures for coalescing media companies across platforms. Also, Google, Facebook and other internet services, do not have to pay the conventional government fees, nor do they have to abide by the regulations choking the legacy media. This puts the older media companies at an unfair advantage due to government regulation.
Because Senator Hanson and Senator Burston have dealt with the details of our package put to, and accepted by, the government, I will focus on the ABC. The ABC was established in a bygone area. It was essential in the 1980s in the Kimberley, yet time has moved on and the ABC, sadly, has moved in a different direction from the way the world has moved. Nowhere in its charter does the ABC mention 'fair and balanced'. Under 'duties of the board', item 8, subsection c, it says that the duties of the board are to ensure 'news and information is accurate and impartial'.
Let's consider this. I conducted a quantitative, measured analysis of the background briefing radio program on ABC TV on Sunday, 17 July 2011. In that 50-minute program, there were 22 instances where the ABC created or implied misrepresentations by omission and/or made unfounded associations. There were 22 in 50 minutes. There were 18 false statements. They ignored key arguments, countering their position six times. They made sweeping, inaccurate generalisations based on personal value judgements and they made questionable or dubious comments, including likely false statements—four in total. Even in their own transcript, there were 22 errors. Then we saw the Q&A climate debate on Thursday, 26 April—biased and unfair. We saw Media Watch on 21 March—again, measured assessments, quantitative—and on Monday, 30 May 2011. We saw the ABC's Catalyst on September 8 2011 and ABC's Four Corners, all quantitatively proven to be biased and unfair and misrepresenting. Is that accurate and impartial? No, it's not.
Then we see the way the ABC has treated Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth. The British High Court ruled that Al Gore's movie is a political work, containing many factual inaccuracies. Does the ABC report that? No; it continues to peddle Al Gore's lies. An independent analysis provided in a congressional working paper in America shows that the books on which An Inconvenient Truth is based have in them 19 wrong or false statements, 17 misleading statements, 10 exaggerated statements, 25 one-sided statements and 28 speculative statements. It's absolute rubbish. It's a work of fiction. My detailed analysis of Al Gore's movie reveals an orchestrated deception. There are 234 images of natural and everyday events that are, falsely, depicted as unnatural and inferred to be caused by global warming. We see 71 instances and images of unspecific, unfounded mixing of projections with actual data to imply future climate change. But the ABC seems blissfully unaware of this—just sucked in and presenting this man as a climate scientist. We see in an analysis by Viscount Monckton that Al Gore's movie contains at least 35 errors on climate alone. Is this impartial and accurate?
Bob Brock, a colleague in Brisbane, was so sick and tired of the ABC portraying carbon dioxide—a colourless, invisible trace gas—as pictures of steam billowing out of cooling towers that he eventually wrote to the ABC, repeatedly. He was repeatedly ignored. And then the ABC admitted its error. Then it said it wouldn't do it again. And then it started doing it again, and continued. Is it impartial and accurate to mislead the Australian public? We see scientists like Ove Hoegh-Guldberg—a so-called scientist—misrepresenting climate change repeatedly on the ABC. When I complained to the ABC in writing, documenting the errors that Hoegh-Guldberg peddled, they said that the ABC is not responsible for what its guests say—yet Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is a serial misrepresenter and was on the ABC's programs repeatedly. Is this impartial and accurate? Instead of pushing propaganda, the ABC must report facts and let people make their own opinions.
Never has anyone said that the ABC is right-wing—never, no-one. In the same way, we need to ensure the ABC charter is modified to include 'fair and balanced'. Both can be quantified, and both can be measured. Does the ABC represent both sides? Does it make blatant omissions? Does it present false facts as accurate? Does it check facts? Does it exclude people from one side, or grossly under-represent them, as it does with climate change? The ABC needs to listen to people and to present all sides.
About five years ago, I used to wake up in the morning and check the ABC News website first thing. That's how I got my news. Then I became so concerned about the distortions and the lack of balance and accuracy that I paid for a subscription to The Australian. I bypassed the ABC. But I must point out that there are some fine journalists within the ABC—such as Steve Austin in Brisbane—who can be tough yet fair, and we don't mind that. There is Caitlyn Gribbin here in Canberra, and many other fine reporters, especially in regional centres. Those reporters in regional centres are fair because they live within their communities and they have to answer to those communities, unlike the Greens communes among ABC journalists in Melbourne and Sydney. The ABC's time in its present form has passed, and it needs to be properly managed on behalf of all taxpayers.
Let me explain. Let's talk about productivity. Consider Jonathan Holmes's notoriously biased Media Watch program, which I measured some years ago. The same applies, I'm sure, with Paul Barry today. Analysis of ABC staffing on Media Watch compared with Alan Jones's best-rating daily radio program shows that productivity in program hours per staff is 160 times greater with Alan Jones than Media Watch, and accountability is strong, as shown in Alan Jones's record. Walk into the ABC studios here in Parliament House and see the palace they have to work in, and then walk into the phone box that Sky News operates out of.
By the way, Media Watch continues to blatantly misrepresent me, and its new host, Paul Barry, misrepresents me and Pauline Hanson's One Nation by saying:
... Malcolm Roberts insists the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are either deluded or corrupt ...
I have never said that. I do not believe that. Such a statement would be wrong because the majority of real climate scientists agree with my view. See how cleverly it's done, just to discredit me and those who disagree with the ABC's propaganda. ABC Radio's host in Melbourne, Rafael Epstein, said that Pauline Hanson's One Nation lies about climate. He tweeted that I'm a liar about climate, yet he refuses to provide empirical scientific evidence on climate and refuses to contradict the facts that I have presented from reputable sites, including peer-review papers and well-known sites measuring climate. A former ABC employee wrote to me saying:
The extreme left-wing bias of the ABC has become intolerable. I worked at the ABC at William Street in Sydney and saw at firsthand manipulation of news which I took down from stringers, sometimes rewritten into complete exaggerations or complete lies.
Former chairman of the ABC, Maurice Strong, dared to challenge the ABC staff for groupthink and was howled down. Is that accurate or impartial?
Let's go to another topic. One of Donald Trump's departments released a report earlier this year that said there is a party in Australia that wants to ban Islamic immigration, along the lines of what President Trump tried to do. We were described as a racist party in the left-wing media. Why do people in the left-wing ABC align with Fairfax media to misrepresent and slam us? It is fear driving them. The same report from Trump condemned the Greens for wanting to end prayer at the start of parliament. They did not mention the Greens' anti-Semitic behaviour and words, nor did they mention the Trump reports of apparent condemnation of the South Australian Labor Party. Is that accurate and impartial? We see well-known Muslim support for Senator Pauline Hanson's bans for the burqa. The story took off on the internet. Was it reported on the ABC? Not at all. Is that accurate and impartial? It seems that, on the ABC, wearing a burqa is offensive yet forcing women to wear the burqa is not. Why? This strikes at the core of our Australian values.
The ABC's time has passed. In the budget, its role needs to be reconsidered. It has a regional role, and that is vital and that needs to be strengthened, but its Greens' dominated, capital-city staff in Melbourne and Sydney are killing the ABC's reputation. People in the bush and people in the suburbs laugh at the ABC. They don't treat it seriously. There is the misappropriation of taxpayer funding to push the political agenda. Everyday Australians, everyday taxpayers, are fed up with political correctness that has been incorrect and unreasonable and is peddled by the ABC. The ABC, sadly, is not accountable to anyone. It's okay for private media to be biased; that's their choice. Fairfax and The Guardian are dying because of that choice. News Corp, though, is thriving as it markets different messages to different target audiences across different and sometimes combined media platforms. But it's not fair for the government to be biased. Taxpayer funds must be used fairly, yet the ABC says on that score to the taxpayers: 'Stuff you.'
The ABC budget is around 38 per cent of the national media spend in our country, yet its audience is just over half that, at about 22 per cent. People in rural and regional Australia decry the bias and propaganda, yet listen to it at times because in some places it's the only source of the news and rural data they need. The ABC should be restricted to its charter or sold to the highest bidder. Then we'll see whose ABC it really is. The ABC's audience is 35 per cent in regional and rural areas, yet only 17 per cent of its budget is spent in regional and rural areas—proportionately half.
The ABC is the elephant in the room. It is running rampant and out of control and severely hurts the privately owned media, and that threatens journalists' jobs. If the ABC's spending were increased in the regions, it would increase regional coverage and jobs. People across Australia, and especially in regional areas, are feeling frustrated, annoyed and even angry. We felt it. People need fairness, accuracy, balance and impartiality, because the media's vital role helps or prevents people meeting needs for information, understanding, communication, entertainment, escape, relaxation and even emergency response.
The internet shows that life is complex and things change so quickly that we must remove regulations while protecting people against monopolies that governments created and enabled. To meet people's needs requires a lifting of outdated regulations and rules: the 75 per cent audience reach rule, the two-out-of-three rule, the cross-media ownership rule, the five-out-of-four rule, the one-to-a-market rule, the two-to-a-market rule, the concept of control, free-to-air sports not being siphoned off to subscription broadcasters and the protection of local content.
Our supporters have a strong moral compass and a strong work ethic. People across Australia just want a fair go. That includes journalists, who deserve a fair go and the opportunity to earn job security. We listened, we spoke up and we took action. Pauline Hanson's One Nation says the things that need to be said and we do the things that need to be done. People in this chamber are afraid to take on the fat, bloated sacred cow that is the ABC because of punishment over the airwaves by Greens journalists. We need to bring the media and broadcasting sector into today—the 21st century—for the benefit of media customers, journalists and sustainable media entities into the future, to give all taxpayers a fair go and, especially, real freedom of choice.
I rise tonight to speak to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, a bill that's been hanging around on the Notice Paper for quite some time. It deals with issues that have been debated in this place for much, much longer. We know that we are faced with a very different media landscape than we had five or 10 years ago. We know that things are changing rapidly. Many Australians these days access their news and their content when they want it, on whatever device they want it and from whatever part of the world they want it. But, in all of this, Australian audiences have a desire to be able to access in real time local news and local content that upholds the notion of genuine, quality, public interest journalism.
Effectively, what we're confronted with tonight as we look at the details of this piece of legislation is a bill that has been put together to satisfy the current and more traditional players in the media space. In particular, they are the free-to-air broadcasters, who are struggling with revenue options. Their advertising revenue has dropped off significantly, and audiences are switching off from the television and on to their phones, their tablets or their other streaming services. But, despite all of this, the free-to-air broadcasters are getting a number of concessions throughout this piece of legislation. Scrapping of the licence fees is a huge concession from the Australian taxpayer to our free-to-air broadcasters. Hundreds of millions of dollars are simply being freed up for broadcasters because they won't be paying money to the taxpayer in order to broadcast their content on the free-to-air spectrums.
Then there are the deals that have gone on in exchange for the restrictions on gambling advertising in this bill. Of course the Greens support the restrictions on gambling advertising; we've been one of the leading voices in this space for quite some time. The leader of our party, Senator Di Natale, has led the charge when it comes to having a more responsible approach from government and institutions in relation to dealing with gambling and, in particular, the advertising of gambling during sport.
The broadcasters weren't happy when these advertising restrictions were announced. One very annoyed broadcaster was Fox Sports and Foxtel. What did they get in exchange for these restrictions on gambling advertising? They got a nice sum of $30 million for the pleasure of not being able to broadcast ads for gambling during sport—$30 million to a station that the public has to pay for in order to watch sport. It does beggar belief that the Australian taxpayer is funding a subscription television channel in exchange for what the government calls women's sport and niche sport. I might point out that I don't think women's sport is a niche sport. I've questioned the minister about this; he says they are different things. That's good to know. But I point out that taxpayers are going to fork out $30 million so that Fox Sports can play and show women's and niche sport when, in fact, that money could have gone to a free-to-air channel where every Australian would be able to watch it as they are paying for it as taxpayers.
The sticking point in all of this is the scrapping of the two-out-of-three rule. We have the broadcasters and other media organisations arguing that, in order to be able to restructure their revenue options and their business models, we need to scrap the two-out-of-three rule so that there can be a concentration of media and we can keep media organisations afloat. The question here is: in exchange for what? There was a promise that, if we were to scrap the two-out-of-three rule, we'd see journalists' jobs and content production jobs saved in this country, the protection of media organisations and the protection of diversity. Of course, the exact opposite is being borne out to be true.
What we do know, thanks to the tabling of documents in the New South Wales court only yesterday, is that even if Lachlan Murdoch and Bruce Gordon were able to win the bid to take over Network Ten, there wasn't going to be a guarantee that Australian jobs would be saved at all. In fact, the exact opposite was the case: jobs would be lost and offices and bureaus would be closed. We wouldn't see a protection of media diversity; we would see less and less.
In all of this conversation, we've heard the government say that they need to rush these media reforms through in order to ensure that we protect our media organisations. What we are seeing instead is a contraction of diversity, not an expansion—or, indeed, at the very least, a protection of diversity. That is of huge concern to the Australian Greens and a huge concern to many, many Australians right across the country. People want to know that, when they open up a newspaper, turn on the radio, watch the news on the television or pull out their iPhone or iPad to look at the news online, there is a genuine commitment to Australian news and public interest journalism. Australians want to know what their government is up to and they want to know what's going on in their local communities. They don't want to just be dictated to by a few select voices.
The other outstanding issue now confronting us in relation to these bills is the deal that has been done between the government and One Nation in order to secure One Nation's support for the passage of this legislation. That is deeply rooted in One Nation's irrational and crazy view about our public broadcasters: the ABC and the SBS. We heard Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation, earlier today outlining all of the different stories that the ABC has run on her that she hated. She went right back to the 1990s. That's how long she's been holding a grudge against the ABC. Since day one of her return to Canberra and the Senate, Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation, has had the ABC in her sights. She's using this legislation and the negotiation with the government to ramp up the attacks on our public broadcasters.
We know that they've been able to get support from the government to open up the charter and change a number of things. They want the words 'fair and balanced' inserted into the charter. Heaven knows what that actually means. Of course, it did come from Fox News in the United States—because that's very fair and balanced coverage over there! We also know that they want to be able to publicise the salaries of those working in our public broadcasters who earn over $200,000. It seems a bit ridiculous that ABC staff and SBS staff have to have their salaries publicised, yet media executives of companies that are now getting free licences and handouts from the government of $30 million aren't going to have to publicise their salaries. There's one set of rules for the ABC and the SBS and another set of rules for the private sector. That's not very fair when the private sector keep putting their hand out for government leg-ups and support from the Australian taxpayer.
There is also the review that One Nation has managed to secure in a deal with the government—a review into the competitive neutrality of media. Of course, we know what that's all about. It is the Trojan horse to crack down on the ability of our public broadcasters to do their job, to provide content and news to Australians in the new media landscape, and that of course is online and through streaming services. It is incredible to see that One Nation has managed to convince the Turnbull government to set up a review that would effectively put ABC iView's work on the chopping block. That's what is going to come out of this review. That is what this is designed to do. This is designed so that Australians will not be able to enjoy watching their favourite shows or using the catch-up services to see what happened in the news that day; here in Australia, in their local community or, indeed, around the rest of the world. Australians will not be able to access a quality service like the one that exists today. If they do, do you know what's coming next? They want to start putting a paywall on ABC iview and SBS On Demand. That is where this is going.
This review that has been signed off by the government and was begged for by One Nation is all designed to kick and hobble our public broadcasters. Of course, let's not forget the real objective of One Nation in all of this and the secret deal that has been done with the government for massive budget cuts to our public broadcasters. The night that this arrangement was announced, Pauline Hanson was on Sky News on the Andrew Bolt show crowing: 'It's all right, Andrew, come the next budget we're going to get the government to whack hundreds of millions of dollars out of the ABC.' She was crowing about it. That is what is coming down the line here—and it is all being done in order to secure the support of the crossbench for this media reform package.
The government had a choice. They could have worked with people who wanted to protect and enhance diversity in this country to inject support into the creation of local and Australian content—Australian shows made in Australia for Australian audiences—to perhaps even sell more content made here in Australia overseas, and to protect and support the ABC and SBS, our public broadcasters, that we know the Australian public have such regard for. Or they could do a deal with the devil. They did a deal with Pauline Hanson to fulfil her personal vendetta against the ABC, because she doesn't like the stories they write and run about her. We're in a situation where this Senate is having to debate a bill where the details are not within this package of amendments put forward by the government and where a deal has been done with One Nation because of a personal vendetta that Pauline Hanson has against our public broadcasters because she doesn't like what people say and write about her. Well, bad luck—most of us don't. She's using the Senate's time and the powers in this place to fulfil a personal grudge.
What happened to independence in journalism? What happened to the ability to support our public broadcaster to do its job? The Australian people hold very dear the ABC and SBS. In fact, when you look at how highly regarded the ABC is by the Australian public, over and over again the ABC comes up as the most trusted news source in the country. Yet Pauline Hanson doesn't like what it says and doesn't like the stories that are run, so she's going to 'whack hundreds of millions of dollars out of them'. The government won't admit that this is going on because they're just so desperate to get this bill through and they had to do everything they could to get Pauline Hanson and One Nation into the basket, but we know about it because Pauline Hanson can't bloody help herself. She went out and told everyone that there would be hundreds of millions of dollars whacked out of the ABC come the next budget. That is what is going on here, folks.
Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Three times in the last few minutes Senator Hanson-Young has referred to Senator Hanson as Pauline Hanson. Will you ask her to refer to her by her correct title and show some respect in this chamber, please.
I don't know that that's against standing orders. All right—I remind you, Senator Hanson-Young, to use appropriate titles, please.
I wish that Senator Hanson had some respect for the Australian taxpayer. She's wasting time in this place on personal vendettas, because she can't stand a genuine news service reporting on the dodgy operations within her own political party. That is what is going on here. Of course, we've heard the lunacy coming from Senator Roberts tonight: conspiracy theories about our public broadcasters. Thank goodness that the Australian public can see what a joke and a fraud One Nation are, because they trust the very real, quality journalism that comes out of our public broadcasters and the quality content in Australian shows made by our public broadcasters and shown on their services. They trust the ABC more than they trust Senator Hanson and One Nation.
The looming question, as we draw towards the close of the second reading speeches and head into the committee stage, is: what will the Nick Xenophon Team do here tonight? Voting for this piece of legislation allows this dirty deal with the devil that has been done between the Turnbull government and One Nation to whack hundreds of millions of dollars away, cripple the role of the ABC and shoot holes in ABC iview and SBS On Demand. That is what is before us. If the Nick Xenophon Team flick this through, they will be absolutely complicit in the attack on the ABC, SBS—our public broadcasters. It's hard to rationally argue that a deal done by this government with One Nation to pass this legislation is separate to one done by Nick Xenophon's party and the government. We all know what is on the table. Voting this through tonight means being complicit in whacking the ABC and SBS, and the public don't like it at all.
Senator Hanson-Young, are you foreshadowing your second reading amendment?
I need to foreshadow my second reading amendment, which is about the Senate protecting the ABC and SBS.
You're seeking the call, Senator Di Natale? I was under the impression that Senator Xenophon had the call.
Yes. I've let Senator Xenophon know.
You've negotiated. Go ahead.
At the heart of any media reform package, there have to be two important principles. The first is: how do we ensure that we have diversity in our media landscape? The second is: how do we ensure that we protect independent journalism at a time when current business models are failing, where we're seeing the collapse of independent media right around the country and, indeed, right around the world?
On the first point, the question of media diversity, Australia's right up there, with one of the highest concentrations of media ownership amongst any liberal democracy anywhere in the world. It is remarkable that in our country we have one proprietor who alone controls 70 per cent of the newspapers that are read in this country. We have to ensure that, whatever we do, Australians right around the country have access to a diverse range of voices. That is so critical in any democracy. Ensuring that we have a public debate in this nation that reflects the diversity of opinion has to be reflected in the media that people can access. Yet here we are, with the very real potential that, rather than increasing media diversity in this country and ensuring that we have a broader cross section of voices, we may see further concentration here in the Australian media landscape. That is one of the great concerns that we have: that a shrinking range of views will be captured by the wealthy and powerful players in the world of Australian media.
The second point is the question of ensuring that we try to encourage and in some ways protect a business model that is failing. Let's remember why it is important that we have independent journalism in this country. We've got the fourth estate that exists here to ensure that the three branches of government are accountable, that they can inform the public and that people are given access to up-to-date and accurate information and a range of views so that they themselves can form their own opinions. I've got to say what we're seeing at the moment is of great concern to the Australian Greens. We're seeing the loss of dedicated reporters. I can tell you: when I first started here in the parliament almost six years ago, there were a range of dedicated health reporters, all of whom had experience in the health sector, understood the space and could analyse policy positions from the point of view of experience and expertise. We've lost that. We've lost that in the reporting around the energy sector. Right now we're having a debate around energy, and there are so many reporters who were here when I first started, working across a range of papers, whose analysis was something you could go to, understand, trust and respect. You would not always agree with it, but you would know that you're getting an informed opinion. That's gone.
There is a huge concern that, as these redundancies across our major print media and indeed right across the board continue, we're losing knowledge and experience, and as a result our polity is poorer. That's why we supported the Fairfax strikes when the executive staff continued with their multimillion-dollar salary packages while people were being laid off by the dozens. The view seems to be that one of our major media empires would be better if it were a property magazine rather than a newspaper to inform the public.
So the issue is that we've got a rapidly changing media landscape, and the regulatory environment doesn't match the changes that we're seeing today. You only need to look at Fairfax through Stan or News Limited through Foxtel. They've got television audiences, radio and print, but they're not caught by the two-out-of-three rule because they aren't network licences, and that reflects the changes that are going on at the moment. So the power of the two-out-of-three rule is diminishing. It still has some effect, but it is diminishing. The question is: if we are to get rid of it, what takes its place to ensure diversity, and what can we do to try to encourage independent journalism?
The 2013 Convergence Review recommended that we have an independent regulatory body, something like the KEK in Germany or Ofcom in the UK—basically, to modify regulatory environments as new technologies develop and the way that people access media changes. The reason that those bodies exist is to ensure a diversity of voices so that we don't see further concentration in the media market.
In Australia, here we are with an opportunity to come up with a 21st century regulatory model. If we scrap the two-out-of-three rule, which we agree is losing the power that it once had, what do we put in its place? How do we create a new regulatory environment for start-ups and emerging media organisations? How do we come up with a comprehensive package for the 21st century? That's what the outcome of this debate should be, and I have to say, unfortunately, from what we've seen and from the little that we have heard, that's not what we're going to get.
The first thing is that the package clearly contains what looks like a bribe to commercial networks—a gift of $90 million to their bottom line. 'Here you go, here's a reduction in your licence fees. Have it. Have it! No corresponding duties to boost local content or provide audio description services. Have this gift on behalf of the Liberal-National Party.' Of course, we know where that gift comes from. It comes from ordinary mums and dads right around the country. It comes from the taxpayer. It comes from the people who are listening to this broadcast, right now. You are giving wealthy media proprietors a gift, with nothing in return.
Next we saw another gift given to Foxtel—a $30 million handout was just given to them. What was remarkable about it was that, when we tried to find out why on earth Foxtel was given a cheque for $30 million, there were no ministerial documents to justify that pay-off—no paperwork, nothing. So $30 million—taxpayer dollars—were given to Foxtel. We don't know what it was for. Given that there were some restrictions around gambling advertising, this was a pay-off. We can only assume that was the case, because there's no paperwork. It is remarkable that you could give a $30 million cheque to Murdoch's Foxtel and not have any documentation to demonstrate why it was done.
What we're worried about is that we've got two out of three being secured in exchange for what is going to be a completely deregulated media ownership environment. We're going to see big players swallowing up smaller players, including some of the emerging successful enterprises that might provide a bit of healthy competition. That is the great concern here. We understand that there might be a few scraps for regional cadetships. We support regional cadetships, but, alone, that's not enough. What is the point of training journalists if there are no jobs for them to go to? What's the point of having a regional cadetship, if you haven't injected the sorts of incentives that are necessary to turbocharge independent journalism in this country and give people a job? We're training them for no reason. This is a pathway to nowhere. The media landscape in Australia is crumbling before our eyes. It's changing rapidly. Training journalists for jobs that don't exist is a waste of taxpayer money. Now, of course, if there's a pathway to ensure that there are going to be new jobs then training journalists has merit, but so far that's not what we understand to be the case. We don't know what the case is, because the details of any deal that has done so far have not yet been announced.
That brings us to another question, which is the process for dealing with a piece of legislation like this that has been a year and a half in the making. Yet, here we are, 20 past nine at night, and about to sign off on a deal that we haven't even seen. It's such incredibly poor process. I have to say that I expect better from my colleagues on the crossbench, Senator Xenophon. We would have at least liked to have known what was part of this deal so that we could scrutinise it and make sure that there are no unintended consequences.
You have already heard from my colleague Senator Hanson-Young about our concerns about the impact any potential deal will have on the public broadcaster, the ABC. This deal gives the green light for the ABC to be subject to the competitive neutrality review, and that worries us deeply. It should concern anybody who, late at night, might be snuggled up under the doona and wanting to catch up on the latest Utopia episode or have a laugh with Shaun Micallef. We don't know if people are going to be able to do that anymore, because there may be a paywall erected around iview. If this review does lead to iview or SBS On Demand being put behind a paywall, you can come back and look at the deal that has been done today to know the origin of that. This deal today may give, through the competitive neutrality review, the green light to put up a paywall around iview or SBS On demand. I know there'll be many Australians right around the country who will be deeply concerned if that's the case. The truth is that Australians love their ABC, and they are right to do so.
I heard the unhinged rant from the One Nation senator before. Look, as unhappy as One Nation are with their coverage on the ABC, let me tell you, the Greens are often not thrilled with our coverage on the ABC, but that's not the point. That is not the point! The point of any media reform shouldn't be to make sure that, whatever you do, you get your mates a free kick so that you get better coverage through the media. That's not the way this should work. In any democracy we should be encouraging a range of voices and, in that, the voice of the national broadcaster is absolutely critical.
Like many Australians, while we might have our criticisms of the ABC at times, we know how precious it is, the important role that it plays. We need to ensure that they get, through any changes around media reform, a fair hearing. And it seems that while Foxtel are getting a great deal out of this, while all the private broadcasters are getting a great deal out of this, the ABC looks like it's getting screwed over. The national broadcaster is getting a terrible deal out of this. They're going to be under pressure, as a result of this review, to vacate the field so that commercial networks can come along and hoover up the audience that is so dedicated to the ABC.
So let me just finish by saying: we did undertake to have discussions with the government through this process. We did do that. We did it because, in our view, here was an opportunity to increase the range of voices in the media, to improve diversity and to look at potentially putting in place some incentives that might actually give a future to independent journalism in this country. That's why we engaged in this review. We knew that if the two-out-of-three rule was to be scrapped, there had to be something meaningful in its place. A modern, 21st century regulatory environment that ensures that all Australians, no matter where they live, can hear from a range of opinions, can be informed and make up their own minds. Sadly, from what we know of this deal, that's just not the case. We've seen a few crumbs thrown to things like cadetships, which won't provide any certainty to independent journalism. We'll see further concentration in the media landscape and, rather than protecting our ABC, it appears that this deal takes a hatchet to it.
This is a very important piece of legislation. I apologise to my colleagues on the crossbench that I haven't spoken to them in the last few hours or the last couple of days. I think it's fair to say that this has been the most difficult and protracted and robust set of negotiations I have engaged with in 20 years of being in parliament, state and federal. I believe the outcome reached, which I will speak to, is a good outcome for diversity of journalism; for journalists' jobs; and for small, independent and regional publications around the country. And I apologise to the journalists who I have ignored in the last 24 hours. It's just been impossible, in terms of these negotiations, to get back to people when I would have liked to.
As most senators are aware, Australia's commercial media companies and the profession of journalism have been, and continue to be, in a period of profound change. Indeed, it's no exaggeration to say that our media, like the media across much of the Western industrialised world, is in a state of crisis. Media companies large and small are under great pressure. A great deal has been said about the impact of the internet, the so-called digital revolution, as the great disruptor of established business models for journalism and publishing. Broadcasters and publishers are operating in circumstances of rapid technological change. There is intense competition for audiences and advertising revenue not only from other companies, including online and on-demand operators, but also from, most fundamentally, foreign technology companies Google and Facebook in particular, which have aggregated news and content while simultaneously separating content producers from digital revenue streams.
When you consider that Google and Facebook are hoovering away over $4 billion in advertising revenue in this country every year—and some say that it could be upwards of $5 billion or $6 billion—of course that will have a profound impact on journalism in this country and on the news organisations that fund the content providers that fund the journalists, the camera operators, the photographers and the editors to bring the news and analysis to our living rooms, to our iPhones and to our doorsteps around the country. When Mark Zuckerberg said, 'Move fast and break things,' that maybe said something about the ethos of some of these technology companies. The fact that they only pay about one per cent of their turnover, of the billions of dollars they make, in taxes is a real concern, although I note that it appears from some media organisations I have spoken to that the technology companies have seemed more willing in recent times to engage with media organisations to give them a better deal, but there is still a fundamental issue of their enormous market power and the data they control—and I'll address that in due course.
It's been much the same story across print, radio and television. Advertising sales and subscriptions of one form or another have fallen and, with that revenue crisis, we have seen dramatic contraction in the business of news, with 3,000 journalists, subeditors, designers, photographers and other content producers exiting this profession in Australia in recent years. Newsrooms have shrunk dramatically. You can see it here in the parliamentary press gallery, but the bigger cuts have been spread across the country even more deeply. Regional newspapers have folded. Regional news services, such as they now are, are being produced from capital cities in many cases. High forms of public interest journalism, especially investigative reporting, are increasingly working with fewer and fewer staff and resources. There are still fine journalists producing excellent product, but they are fewer in number and spread much more thinly. Coverage of local developments, from what is happening in local councils to who won the local football match, is evaporating. Court reporting is also rapidly diminishing. Fewer and fewer journalists are churning out more and more digital product, but more and more of that is 'churnalism': recycled and repackaged PR handouts and celebrity trivia. The production of one form or another of clickbait appears to be an increasingly favoured business model in an environment of declining revenue—constant churn but ever more shallow content. In this environment, increasing PR manipulation, spin and fake news are indicators of a deep malaise.
The seriousness of these issues was reflected in the Senate's decision earlier this year to establish a Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism. I genuinely and sincerely congratulate Senator Dastyari for his leadership on that and for chairing that committee. It has been a very valuable committee in terms of the evidence we've heard to date and the work we still need to do. That inquiry is ongoing but has already generated many useful submissions and valuable debate about the future of journalism in our country.
Many of us have long presumed that a free and vibrant media is essential for a well-informed citizenry and a vibrant democracy. But it can't be assumed that current media business models, especially in a market increasingly dominated by foreign technology companies, will necessarily serve that important democratic role. I don't think anyone could say our media industries are healthy today, and with that our democracy is not healthy either.
That said, the legislation before the Senate today, introduced by the government and now associated with additional measures negotiated between the government and NXT, is an attempt to modernise current media regulation and help the Australian media industry to deal more effectively with the huge challenges it faces. The bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to abolish the 75 per cent audience reach rule, which prohibits commercial television broadcasting licensees from controlling licences whose combined licence area populations exceed 75 per cent of the Australian population.
The bill will further abolish the very contentious two-out-of-three cross-media control rule, which prohibits control over more than two-out-of-three regulated media platforms in any one commercial radio licence area. The bill will also provide further additional local programming obligations for regional commercial television broadcasting licensees, amend measures relating to the anti-siphoning scheme and abolish broadcast licensing fees, datacasting charges and apparatus licence fees paid by commercial broadcasters. The Australian Communications and Media Authority, the ACMA, will be required to undertake a further review of developments by 1 July 2021. And, of course, there are other measures that have been alluded to by other speakers related to a restriction of gambling advertising. It's by no means perfect, but at least it is a significant improvement on what we have seen. It is something I and my colleagues have campaigned for, as indeed have many others in this chamber who believe, who know, that gambling advertising, including sports betting advertising, has gone far too far in this country and that it needs to be curtailed. This will go some way to that, but I see that as a first step, not a final step.
The bill enjoys strong support from major sectors of the media industry. That is important, though one should say that the commercial interests of the major media players should not weigh heavily in this debate. We should look at what this does for diversity. It does weigh heavily on my mind when regional broadcasters tell me how tough it is and how their revenue has been declining. When you look at their share price and when you look at their advertising budgets shrinking, in part because of Google and Facebook, we cannot ignore the pressures on those companies. I do not want to see any other major or indeed minor media company going into administration.
We support the legislation as necessary reforms that reflect the very large changes, especially the convergence of technologies, that have transformed the media landscape. We cannot credibly say that the two-out-of-three rule has the same currency and validity as when it was first enacted in the pre-internet era, before digital broadcasting and the impact that has.
Our support has been conditional on the negotiation and agreement with the government on a major package of additional measures to support the small publishers, especially in Australia's regions but also in metropolitan areas, and the profession of journalism itself in this very challenging period. I and my colleagues welcome the government's commitment to implement a regional and small publishers jobs and innovation package worth $60.4 million over three years. The government has accepted that public support is necessary to help small publishers and small regional newspapers as well as to create opportunities for more cadetships and for regional students to study journalism.
The significance of this agreement should not be underestimated. An important threshold has been crossed. We accept that many elements of Australian industry and commercial life may need government support from time to time, especially in times of rapid economic change and external pressure. I believe that government has a judicial role to play in many sectors of the economy, particularly in these challenging times, where there has been market disruption, where the playing field is no longer level and where you have two foreign technology companies ripping away at least $4 billion in advertising revenue each year, with the impact that has on traditional media, those that provide the content, tell the stories and provide the analysis and the investigative reporting that are fundamental to our democracy. All of my colleagues have long supported public broadcasting through the ABC and SBS, but government support for elements of the commercial media is a new development in Australia. There is no doubt about that.
But it is far from unprecedented. On this, I direct senators to submissions and evidence given to the Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism, chaired by Senator Dastyari, especially the submission of the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia, which draws on a review of media systems in 14 European countries as well as the United States, Canada, New Zealand and also Australia. Among the key messages was a conclusion that, because of the current loss of advertising and the need to safeguard pluralism and editorial competition, alternative funding sources for public interest journalism need to be considered.
The report found that indirect subsidies for the media in the form of tax breaks were the most common form of aid, something that would have been my first choice. All 14 European media systems analysed had a reduced form of VAT—similar to GST—on sales of newspapers and magazines, while in four countries, including the United Kingdom, all sales were entirely exempt from VAT. Further indirect subsidies were found via reduced tariffs for telecommunications, electricity, paper or transport and through subsidies for news agencies, journalism schools, journalism research, reading promotion or professional associations. Several countries had a form of production aid for certain media organisations. Mainly these were to support second newspapers in particular defined areas. They were sometimes to support newspapers in minority languages. Other forms of aid helped to support distribution, internal training and the formation or reorganisation of newspapers. No fewer than 12 of the countries analysed used direct financial production subsidies to support private broadcasters, mainly regional and community broadcasters. In Denmark, Sweden and Italy, press subsidy schemes are now open to fully online media as well. So what is being announced today might be new for Australia, but it is hardly unprecedented when one looks abroad at what other countries are doing to deal with very similar challenges in the commercial media sector.
Returning to what has been agreed between NXT and the government, the government will establish, to assist smaller publishers and to foster diversity, a one-off regional and small publishers innovation fund involving $50 million worth of grants over three years from the 2018-19 financial year. The government will set up the fund such that the first round of grants can be announced no later than 1 June 2018, with the first grant moneys to flow from 1 July 2018. The government has undertaken to keep me and my colleagues aware of the process. It needs to be a public process, and it must be one involving the architecture of the scheme. The purpose of the fund is to assist small publishers in transition to compete and innovate more successfully in a changing media environment.
Publishers will be able to use the grants for initiatives that support the continuation, development, growth and innovation of Australian civic journalism, including initiatives that explore and expand the journalism funding model. In the context of this agreement, civic journalism is defined as 'journalism that has a primary purpose of investigating and explaining public policy and issues of public interest or significance with the aim of engaging citizens in public debate and forming democratic decision-making'. Grants could be allocated, for example, to programs and initiatives such as the purchasing or upgrading of equipment and software, development of apps and trading—all of which would assist in extending regional journalism. It will also help fund business activities that drive revenue and readership, something that is very important.
The aim of the fund is to enhance the ability of small publishers to maintain and expand employment. The criteria should be broad and flexible, and it's important that it's there to expand civic journalism. The eligibility criteria will include measures such as: a primary purpose test of producing civic and public interest journalism with an Australian perspective; an Australian resident test where grant recipients must be incorporated under Australian law and have their central management and control in Australia; an independence test where grant recipients must not be affiliated and must not be part of a political party, union, superannuation fund, financial institution, non-government organisation or policy lobby group; a control test, so it's an entity controlled and majority-owned by Australian residents; being a member of the Australian Press Council, or else have a robust and transparent complaints process and do their journalism ethically. They must have editorial guidelines, a code of conduct or framework relating to the provision of quality journalism. Publishers with an annual turnover of not less than $300,000 and not more than $30 million of revenue would be ineligible. Large publishers, such as News Corporation and Fairfax, will be ineligible. Funding grants will be capped at a maximum of $1 million per year for any media group. At least two-thirds of funding must go to regional publishers that have been under enormous stress and not less than 25 per cent for non-regional publishers.
The fund will be administered independently of government by the ACMA. They will seek input from an advisory committee, or representatives invited from each of the Australian Press Council, the Walkley Foundation and Country Press Australia, to give advice on the distribution of the fund. The advisory committee's recommendation will be made public. The fund may well give much-needed support to existing publishers. Those newspapers and publishers may adopt whatever editorial lines they like.
In addition, NXT and the government have agreed to funding to provide opportunities for students, including graduates, in regional areas and/or smaller metropolitan publications to access journalism training. In terms of regional scholarships, the government will establish 60 regional journalism scholarships worth $40,000 each, which will support regional students to take up opportunities to study journalism courses, with the aim of equipping more regional Australians with journalism training. That will commence in the 2018-19 financial year. Funding for the scholarships will be provided through the department of communications to a number of our premier journalism and media training institutions. They will be allocated proportionately so that students in every state and territory will have an opportunity to apply for scholarships.
To assist in creating employment opportunities in regional media, the government will also establish a regional and small publishers' cadetship program. The cadetships will be supported with a wage subsidy, with eligible organisations able to apply for a wage subsidy or a grant of up to $40,000 per journalism cadet. The cadetship program is there to increase journalism resources, not to supplant existing resources. Two hundred cadetships will be available for funding over two years, with 100 cadetships available each year. Of those 100 cadetships in a single year, at least 80, but not more than 90, cadetships will be for regional publications. And I'm sure in the committee stages we can discuss the eligibility criteria, as we must.
In addition to these measures, the Treasurer has agreed to our proposal that he direct the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into the impact of the new digital environment on media, specifically the impact of digital search engines, social media platforms and other digital content aggregation platforms on competition in media and advertising markets—in particular in relation to the supply of news and journalistic content and the implications of this for media content, creators, advertisers and consumers, something that my colleague Senator Griff has done an enormous amount of work on. I congratulate him for that forensic work that he's done. This will be the template for reform. The ACCC inquiry will commence as soon as possible and not later than 1 December 2017. There is to be a preliminary report within 12 months and a final report within 18 months, which has huge implications for the future of journalism in this country and ensuring that the playing field is levelled.
In negotiations with government, the government has agreed to grant a further six-month extension for community television licensees, taking them to 30 June 2018 so there can be, once and for all, a round table to determine their future. I believe in community television. The government has also committed to a review on Australian broadcasting services in the Asia-Pacific region and examining whether short-wave radio technology should be used.
Altogether, this is a very significant package of additional measures that will enhance the proposed media reforms contained in the bill. In this, we are dealing with the circumstances of commercial media in Australia. Some other contributors to this debate have wanted to say that this is a debate about public broadcasting. If they want in some way to modify the editorial independence of the ABC and have it more attuned to their particular viewpoint, they can always introduce legislation to give effect to their objective, but they will not have support from NXT. We are absolutely committed to a fully independent and well-resourced ABC and, indeed, SBS as well. In the $60 million package we have secured, we will not support that.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Order! Let Senator Xenophon finish his speech.
This is about—I want to make it absolutely clear—a commitment to the ABC and SBS. This is a package of measures that will enhance journalism in Australia and will mean more journalists being employed rather than fewer journalists. That is why we will support the second reading stage of this bill, and we look forward to the committee stages of this bill.
Mr Acting Deputy President, thank you for including me late on the speaking list. I wasn't intending to get up at this stage of the debate, and I note that at this stage it looks as if we will very soon be moving to the committee stage, which will be an opportunity to look at some of this in detail. But what I want to say is this: let's just reject outright the notion that this is anything other than what it is. This is an eleventh hour deal, a dirty deal that is going to hurt public broadcasting in this country, is going to hurt journalistic independence and is going to hurt the future of journalism. Let's not pussyfoot around this. Let's realise what has happened.
The government firstly did a deal with One Nation. We know they did a deal with One Nation, because One Nation stood up today and told us so.
Bragged about it!
Bragged about it. To quote Senator Hanson-Young, they crowed about it. They're doing in the ABC and they're doing in SBS.
Then they had to find a way for Senator Xenophon and the NXT to keep their hands clean of this dirty deal. I have worked with Senator Xenophon on many occasions and I have an incredible amount of respect for Senator Xenophon on many issues, but, Senator Xenophon, you are better than this deal. You are better than this dirty deal that has been done at the eleventh hour. Frankly, you have enabled and you are enabling what will be a funding cut to the ABC and an attack on the ABC. We know what happened here. Xenophon's party said, 'We can't have our hands on anything dirty happening with the ABC because of our base,' and the government said, 'Fine. We'll just separate it out. We'll deal with it at the next budget, we'll deal with it at MYEFO and we'll deal with it in other ways.' We know this because One Nation are saying this. They're saying they're supporting all of this because of what will happen to the ABC and SBS. When we get to the committee stage, we'll have an opportunity to go into this in more detail.
Let's be clear: media diversity should not be traded off in exchange for support for journalism. It's not an either/or proposition. Australia can do both. I've had the fortunate opportunity through this Senate to chair a committee inquiry into public interest journalism. We started off with these big ideas—big ideas, Senator Xenophon—about creating tax deductibility around journalism. Do we look at taxing some of the big aggregators like Google and Facebook and using that money to pay for public interest journalism? All of that's gone. Now we have a $60 million slush fund, and let's be clear about where it will go. Again, we'll have an opportunity in the committee stage to get to the detail of this. It won't go to The Guardian. It won't go, it appears, to BuzzFeed and others. It is structured in a way so that the conservative parties, the Liberal and National parties, could get it through their own base.
They're not conservatives.
They're not conservatives, says Senator Bernardi—I will take that interjection. They're conservative compared to me. This is an attempt by the right-wing parties to get it through their own base. They've done in The Guardian. Let's be clear. Senator Xenophon, they are doing in The Guardian. You know this.
Threw them under a bus.
You've thrown them under a bus. We heard evidence in our inquiry from companies like BuzzFeed and others—these new, exciting, fresh, interesting companies. They're the ones who won't benefit from these measures as they appear to have been structured. Again, we'll have the opportunity to ask some specific questions a few minutes from now.
What we have here is a very dirty deal, and it didn't need to be done like this. It didn't need to be rushed through in this way. A $60 million slush fund is going to be the replacement for what could have been big, exciting new ideas. Senator Xenophon, I sat beside you when you asked question after question about whether Google and others are going to have to pay some kind of a levy or tax and about making public interest journalism tax deductible. These are big, exciting ideas. Whether they are the right ideas or the wrong ideas, we're going through a process to determine that, but what they weren't was a $60 million slush fund that will be targeted to exclude certain media providers. This is not how it should be done. We should not be debating big issues like this at the eleventh hour in this way. We, as a Senate, should be better than this. We, as a parliament, should be better than this.
I'm not going to hold up the chamber any longer, because I note the minister is speaking next and we'll have the opportunity to go to the committee stage, but, frankly, I have to say: this is a very, very disappointing situation to be in. It is an absurdity that we're creating, what, 60 scholarships? We're selling out journalism for 60 scholarships? We're selling out the ABC and SBS for 60 scholarships and $60 million? That's it? Perhaps those who know my history in ALP politics know that I'm not opposed to a deal, but make a good one. At least get something for it. How cheap do you have to go in this? With $60 million and 60 scholarships, at the end of it what jobs are actually going to be left?
There won't be any at the ABC.
Well, no. The idea that you are going to give in to Pauline Hanson! Malcolm Roberts gave another crazy speech tonight.
Senator Malcolm Roberts and Senator Pauline Hanson.
Sorry. Senator Malcolm Roberts gave another crazy speech tonight. His entire contribution about the future of public journalism was about a conspiracy at the ABC with their views on climate change. You had Senator Burston and Senator Hanson start outlining journalistic stories they didn't particularly like. If that is the basis for their negotiation, why would you enter into that? Why would you do a deal on that basis?
Frankly, this is an attack on the ABC. This is an attack on public broadcasting. This is an attack on the institutions that the right of politics believe they cannot support, be they BuzzFeed, The Guardianor others. Frankly, as a parliament and as a Senate, we are better than the rubbish that it looks likely we'll be passing tonight.
Minister, would you like to finish us off?
They haven't finished negotiating.
An opposition senator: They're still cooking it up.
I'm just being courteous to a colleague. As it appears no further colleagues are wishing to contribute to the debate, can I thank colleagues for doing so. Also, more particularly, can I thank the colleagues who have engaged with me over an extended period of time. As I mentioned earlier in the procedural debate about extra hours, it should be acknowledged that crossbench colleagues and Green colleagues have constructively and positively engaged with the government. While we didn't reach agreement with the Greens, we nevertheless appreciated the fact that they were open to discuss this.
Crossbench colleagues have been very open. They've also been subject to a fair bit of criticism, bordering on abuse, by the Australian Labor Party on their exercising their appropriate rights as senators to examine propositions and to make a determination on those. The Labor Party have really been a very stark contrast, and I couldn't help but be reminded of the gracelessness of some of those opposite not only in the contributions in the place but over the last few weeks.
I do want to start with the alternative government. I want to start with something that those opposite have said often, and that is that they recognise the need for media reform and that they support all elements with the exception of the two-out-of-three rule abolition. But it's important not to go by what Labor say but to look at what it is they do. In the House of Representatives, the Australian Labor Party voted against every element in the media reform package in the second reading vote, and they voted against the whole package at the third reading. So there is a contradiction inherent in saying they support everything apart from abolishing two-out-of-three but then voting against the entire package. I've again heard Labor colleagues in this place tonight state that they support everything apart from the two-out-of-three component. So it will be interesting to see if Labor support the second reading of this bill. If they're to be taken at their word, if they're to be taken at what they say, they would support the second reading of this bill, but it will remain to be seen if that is indeed the case.
Something else we've heard repeatedly from those opposite, particularly Ms Rowland in another place, is that what there needs to be, when making decisions in the area of media reform, is an evidence base. The evidence is well and truly in. There is not a need for any more inquiries, there is not a need for any more Senate committees, there is not a need for further analysis of data. The evidence is in. It is clear. This is not 1988. The internet does exist. The media laws that we have were crafted for an era which is barely recognisable today. The media laws that we have had the perfectly good intention, back in 1988, of seeking to ensure diversity by ensuring that there wasn't an excessive concentration of ownership—and that probably made sense in 1988, when the only platforms were print, radio and TV.
We all know that things have changed dramatically since then. We know that the internet is all pervasive. We know that people have an unprecedented range of options when it comes to how they consume their media and how they consume their news. And those well-intentioned media laws, the two-out-of-three and the 75 per cent audience reach rule, now have the effect of constraining the capacity of Australian media organisations to configure themselves in the ways to best support their viability. And all of us in this place want to see, I would hope, strong Australian media voices.
From where I stand, the greatest threat to diversity in Australian media would be the failure of a significant media organisation. I think that would be the greatest threat to diversity. But we agree that it is important that there are diversity protections, which is why we are not proposing the abolition of what is known as the five-four or the voices rule, which says that: in a metropolitan market, you need to have five independent media voices; and, in a regional market, you need to have four independent media voices. We are not proposing the abolition of that. We are not proposing the abolition of the two-to-a-market radio rule, which says that you can't have more than two radio licences in one market. We are not proposing the abolition of the one-to-a-market TV rule, which says that you can't have more than one TV licence in a market. We will also continue to have the competition ruler of the ACCC, so there will still be important diversity protections.
What's being proposed by the legislation that is before the chamber is that we free things up a little for Australian media organisations, that we allow them to have a broader range of dance partners when it comes to who they might configure with to better support their viability. If you have more viable media organisations with scale, they will be in a better position to employ journalists and do the important work that they do. So we recognise the importance of diversity. We will be keeping important diversity protections.
I have commented before, in talking about media reform, that this is a somewhat unusual situation in that we have the support of essentially the entire Australian media industry. We have the support of Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News, Free TV, Commercial Radio Australia, Foxtel and ASTRA. That is—and this is no understatement—unprecedented. The reason it's unprecedented is because these are fiercely competitive commercial rivals who understandably talk their own book, talk their own corner. But what we have seen here is, such is the challenge faced by the Australian media industry from online and over-the-top providers, that the leaders of Australia's media industry have looked beyond their own legitimate organisational interests to the wider interests of the Australian media industry. So it's a credit to the leaders of Australia's media industry, but it is also a key indicator of the fact that they are under such challenge.
What we have before the Senate is a comprehensive package which seeks to provide a shot in the arm for Australian media organisations to give them a fighting chance. The elements, as colleagues would know, include, for commercial free-to-air TV and for commercial radio, the abolition of the existing revenue based licence fees and the replacement of those with a more modest spectrum charge. That is a tax cut. That is an important shot in the arm for these organisations. Every commercial radio station in the nation—and they're in every city and town, big or small—wants to see this package through. Every free-to-air TV station in the nation, be they metro or regional, wants to see this package passed. I have mentioned already the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule and the 75 per cent audience reach rule. Media organisations that I have mentioned are all in favour of the abolition of these ownership control laws. This is a package that, indeed, does have something for each of these organisations, but it also has a community dividend in the form of further restrictions on gambling advertising. This is something that has been welcomed and well received in the community. Yes, there is certainly a dividend for media organisations, and we want there to be because we want them to be strong and viable, but there's also an important community dividend here.
One of the more curious things that I've heard over the past few months is a contribution from Ms Rowland from the other place, in an interview on Sky with Kieran Gilbert. Kieran said words to the effect of: 'Given you've got every media organisation in the nation supporting this package, why wouldn't you embrace it? Why wouldn't you support it? Surely these people know something about their industry. Surely these people know something about what makes a good and conducive environment to employ people.' Ms Rowland's response was, 'Well, they're only supporting this package because there's something in it for them.' Yes, indeed—that's right. That's why they are, and that's why we put this package together, to ensure just that.
Colleagues opposite, like us, want to see media diversity, and we have some diversity protections, but diversity is not something that you can legislate into being. The necessary prerequisite for diversity is to have existing strong, viable media organisations that continue. If you don't have that, it doesn't matter what laws you have, you're not going to have diversity. That's why we think it's important that you have a combination of diversity protections, which we have in the form of the five-four rule, the two-to-a-market rule, the one-to-a-market rule and the ACCC, together with a package of measures which helps support the viability of Australian media organisations.
It has been commented by colleagues opposite that we have entered into agreements with various groupings in the chamber. The answer is, yes, we have. It's funny. When the Australian Labor Party enters an agreement, they call it an agreement. When the other side of politics enters an agreement, they call it a deal—they seek a pejorative term. In politics it doesn't matter the forum, whether it's a local council, a state parliament, the House of Reps, the Australian Senate, a local branch meeting of the ALP or a local branch meeting of the Australian Conservatives, you need 50 per cent plus one to do anything in any of those forums. So we have attempted to get 50 per cent plus one in this place.
There has been a bit of attention paid to some elements which will be the subject of subsequent legislation. I refer to a few matters to do with the ABC. I just want to advise colleagues that what we have agreed and what we will seek to pursue in relationship to the ABC are measures to enhance the ABC. I want to start in particular with some measures which were put forward by our colleague Senator Bridget McKenzie which have been adopted as government policy and do form part of an agreement that we have entered into in this place.
Senator McKenzie put forward, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, a range of measures in relation to the ABC and regional Australia. Now, it would surprise many people, I think, to discover that nowhere in the ABC Charter does it make reference to rural and regional Australia. But there is no such reference, and so what we will seek to do is to have a reference to rural and regional Australia in the ABC Charter, because that's an important part of their work, and I think most Australians would assume that's already there.
We're also proposing to ensure that there are at least two people on the ABC board who have a background from rural and regional Australia. Now, that's something that this government has already done by virtue of the appointment of Georgie Somerset, who's a beef producer from Kingaroy, and also Vanessa Guthrie, who is the chair of the Mineral Councils of Australia. We have already done that, but we think it's appropriate that that requirement be enshrined in legislation.
Senator McKenzie also put forward the proposition that there should be an ABC regional advisory council with which ABC management would need to consult when there's a decision being taken which has a material effect on residents of rural Australia, and we think that's a good thing. But there are a range of other transparency measures that she has put forward. There has been mention, obviously, of the issue of 'fair and balanced' being incorporated into the ABC's act. And I know colleagues will take great reassurance from the fact that chapter 4 of the ABC's editorial guidelines refers to 'a balance that follows the weight of evidence'—there's that word, 'balance'—and to 'fair treatment'. The ABC's own editorial guidelines in chapter 4 talk about being fair and balanced. The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance Journalistic Code of Ethics also talks about fairness no less than six times. So, if it's good enough for the MEAA and good enough for the ABC editorial guidelines, there should be no reason why 'fair and balanced' should not be incorporated into the ABC's act. So I know colleagues opposite will take great reassurance from that.
You'll have the opportunity to vote for them later on.
That's right, Senator Bernardi. I just want to make brief mention of some of those measures, because they have attracted some comment.
When it comes to diversity, obviously, there are a range of measures for community radio that the government has agreed to. There are also a range of measures in relation to cadetships, in relation to scholarships and also in relation to an innovation fund. These are all good and positive things to further support diversity. But the most important thing that is being done for diversity in the package that is before the Australian Senate is measures that will help the long-term viability of Australian media organisations and ensure that we have strong Australian media voices into the future.
While those of us here may not always like what it is that those in the gallery and in other journalistic walks will post, write, broadcast, tweet or blog, nevertheless, what they do is an important underpinning for our democracy. The scrutiny that they provide is one of the things that make us a robust pluralistic democracy. We want to see that work that Australian journalists do continue. It's one thing to say that you value the work of journalists and that you value what it is the media organisations do, but it's another thing to demonstrate that. The package that is before the Senate provides a shot in the arm to Australian media organisations. It provides them with a fighting chance. On this side of the chamber, we're for strong Australian media organisations. Those opposite talk about it, but when it comes down to it in the House of Representatives they vote against each and every measure that would support that. I urge my colleagues to consider this package. I urge this chamber to consider this package.
Two-out-of-three was the problem, and you're misrepresenting it!
I'll take the interjection, in the final 20 seconds, from Senator O'Neill: it's not a misrepresentation. Look at the Hansard in the House. Every Labor member voted against every measure in the House of Representatives. Saying that it's not so does not make it untrue.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add:
", but reaffirms that the Senate is a friend of the ABC, notes that the agreement to support the bill involves a non-statutory review which threatens iView, SBS on Demand and online news content, and is of the opinion that the bill should not proceed if the review is to occur".
This is about showing the Senate's support for our public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, despite the disgusting attack on them from this dirty deal that the government has done with One Nation.
The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
The question now is that the motion that the bills be now read a second time, as amended, be agreed to.
I want to put on the record that the Australian Conservatives support the need for media reform. I said this in my second reading contribution and I have said it in the media leading up to this debate. But I believe that we cannot look at media reform in isolation by only considering the commercial media. We have what I would term the elephant in the room—it was addressed by Senator Siewert's and Senator Hanson-Young's amendments—which is our national broadcaster. We may be approaching this from different angles, but the national broadcaster has been brought into this debate. The national broadcaster is the elephant in the room. Between the ABC and SBS, it consumes about $1.5 billion worth of taxpayer dollars. It competes in a media landscape which is highly competitive and, as I think the Senate is about to acknowledge or has acknowledged through the second reading debate, is in need of significant reform, if only to allow the commercial operators to be competitive and to remain viable. Other senators have discussed the need to maintain the rural and regional presence in the diverse media landscape we see in this country. Whilst Senator Xenophon's amendments, which have been accepted by the government, don't sit particularly well with me, I will not let the perfect get in the way of the good and the necessary.
However, I do think it is in the country's interest to be done with media reform, at least for the rest of this year. I have noted that the government has given some undertakings to One Nation in particular. I think the term was, 'A deal has been done,' over some substantial changes to the charter and conduct of the ABC. I also note that the minister acknowledged the importance of those things and his willingness to bring them into being. I also note that Senator McKenzie has a private senator's bill about ABC reform as well, with a particular focus on regional and rural areas.
It was in the interests of facilitating the speedy resolution of these things—to allow the government to have more time to deal with important things such as reducing the national debt and spending less money and so forth, rather than revisiting media reform again and again—that I thought it would be much better for this place to ask the government and the Senate to render their judgement on the deal that One Nation has done with the government and on Senator McKenzie's reforms as well. So I've incorporated these into two tranches of amendments, which I'll address shortly.
But I need to spell out that, whilst I have introduced them into this bill, they are not my amendments. I know Senator Hanson was very concerned in her speech in the second reading debate that the amendments that she'd seen from me bore a remarkable resemblance to the deal she had struck with the government. That is because they are the amendments in the deal that One Nation did with the government. I have no ownership of them. In fact, I reserve the right to vote against those, should it come to a division, if I don't like them as such. But make no mistake: these are the very amendments that the government has agreed to do a deal with One Nation on in respect of the ABC. So we can put that to rest forever and a day, or at least for the next few weeks, to allow the government to focus on other things.
Then, when considering how that would facilitate the Senate and make things that much more easy for all of us, I thought: why not incorporate the very prudent amendments from Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie's amendments go to such things as strengthening the rural and regional impact of the ABC. I have to say, in discussing the ABC briefly, that there are people out there who say, 'Let's sell it off or get rid of it.' I'm not one of those. I believe the ABC plays an important role in the Australian psyche. I just happen to think the ABC and SBS are too big and they get too much money. I would like to see them pared back, and I would like to see them have a renewed focus on rural and regional issues. So, whilst in sentiment I agree with many of Senator McKenzie's amendments too, they are incorporated into the amendments that I'm proposing and will be moving later on today.
As I said earlier, I believe the ABC and SBS should be merged. I think we could look to save a substantial amount of money, and that's indeed what I'm trying to do. Part of the reason for that, if I can give you an example, is that the focus seems to be way off for them. Just last week, ABC Radio National ran a segment on Marxism for beginners. I really don't think that we should be having Marxism for beginners lessons on our national broadcaster. Whilst we may think it's a bit of a laugh, I can only imagine the outrage if they had conservatism for beginners or something like that. It wouldn't be allowed on the ABC. Their focus has been taken away from providing news and information and public and current affairs to what some would term 'propaganda'.
So I think there does need to be some significant reform, and I think we can do it to save some money. I think we can do it tonight by honouring the commitment that the government has given to the One Nation team in the interests of openness and transparency and also to back in Senator McKenzie and the Nationals in their reform of the commitment of the ABC to regional areas.
With that, I have two sets of amendments. The first one, amendment (2) on sheet 8253, is to schedule 7. This amendment was part of the One Nation tranche of demands in their deal, and it is essentially a register of foreign ownership of media corporations and a review of taxation arrangements. I say once again that I don't necessarily agree with this. I'm doing it because I think it is in the interests of this parliament to establish once and for all the playing field which we are all dealing with. The level of trust shown between senators has rarely been higher but, whilst we may trust, I think we should verify, in the words of Ronald Reagan. With that, I move amendment (2) on sheet 8253:
(2) Schedule 7, page 53 (line 1) to page 54 (line 6), omit the Schedule, substitute:
Schedule 7—Register of foreign ownership of media corporations and review of taxation arrangements
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
1 After section 215
Insert:
215A Public Register of Foreign Owned Media Corporations
(1) ACMA must establish and update each month a register to be known as the Public Register of Foreign Owned Media Corporations.
(2) The register is to be maintained by electronic means.
(3) The register is to be made available for inspection on ACMA's website.
(4) The register must record the ownership, by country, of:
(a) all commercial broadcasting service licensees;
(b) all subscription television broadcasting service licensees; and
(c) all international broadcasting service licensees.
2 After section 216A
Insert:
216AA Review of taxation arrangements etc.
(1) After 30 June 2019, the ACMA must conduct a review of the following matters:
(a) whether the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Act 2017 should be repealed or amended on or before 1 July 2022;
(b) such matters (if any) as are specified in an instrument under subsection (2).
(2) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, specify one or more matters for the purposes of paragraph (1) (b), so long as those matters relate to:
(a) commercial television broadcasting licensees and commercial radio broadcasting licensees; and
(b) the use of spectrum (within the meaning of the Radiocommunications Act 1992) by those licensees to provide commercial broadcasting services.
(3) In conducting the review, the ACMA must consider such matters (if any) as are specified in an instrument under subsection (4).
(4) The Minister may, by notifiable instrument, specify one or more matters for the purposes of subsection (3).
Consultation
(5) In conducting the review, the ACMA must make provision for public consultation.
Report
(6) The ACMA must give the Minister a report of the review before 1 July 2021.
(7) The Minister must cause copies of a report under subsection (6) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after receiving the report.
I acknowledge Senator Bernardi's contribution. I should indicate, or reinforce, that part of the agreement that the government has with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party is a series of measures that relate to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. We have indicated that we will be seeking to introduce those in a subsequent piece of legislation, which will go through the usual processes that we have, but we have agreed to bring that forward.
Again, I want to acknowledge Senator Bridget McKenzie's role, and Senator Bernardi made reference to the private senators' bill that Senator McKenzie has introduced. The fundamental elements of that will be incorporated into government legislation. They will be government policy, and they are part of the agreement that we have entered into with Pauline Hanson's One Nation. To recap very briefly, they include: putting the words 'rural and regional' in the ABC Charter, something that isn't presently there, which we think is a good thing to do, to have that recognition of rural and regional Australia; they will require that there always be two people on the board of the ABC who have experience living or working in rural and regional Australia, and we think that is a good thing; we also think a positive is the establishment of an ABC regional advisory committee, which the ABC management would need to consult with when there is any significant decision that relates to rural and regional Australia. There are also a range of transparency measures that will be incorporated that had their genesis with Senator McKenzie, such as having in the ABC annual report a better breakdown of the resources and staff in metropolitan and rural Australia.
We have also agreed with One Nation that the words 'fair and balanced' be put into the ABC Act. At the moment, the ABC Act says that the ABC, in its news and current affairs, needs to be accurate and impartial. We have agreed that we will also incorporate the words 'fair and balanced'. As I indicated earlier, in chapter 4 of the ABC editorial guidelines it does make reference to the 'weight of evidence' being taken into account when considering balance, so it does indeed refer to 'balance'. Also, the ABC editorial guidelines in chapter 4 talk about 'fair treatment', so 'fair' and 'balanced' are already in the ABC's own editorial guidelines. That being the case, there shouldn't be an issue with that being reflected in the ABC Act. Also, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance's Journalist Code of Ethics makes reference to 'fairness' on six occasions, so I don't think that should be a matter that is controversial.
It has also been referenced that the government will be seeking, as part of that agreement, to establish a competitive neutrality inquiry, which is to examine the claims that are made by commercial broadcasters and also to look at what the ABC and SBS have to say in relation to these matters. Competitive neutrality is a well-established concept. I think it was Paul Keating who really first pioneered it. Essentially, what it relates to is whether a government organisation is using its status to compete with commercial organisations in a way that isn't reasonable. That is just a summary of those ABC measures that the government intends to pursue.
As I indicated, part of our agreement with One Nation is that we will introduce subsequent legislation to give effect to those things. So, while we obviously support the spirit and intent of Senator Bernardi's amendments, we won't be supporting those here in this place. We will be introducing our own legislation to give effect to those, and that, of course, will go through our own internal processes.
I rise to speak on Senator Bernardi's amendments, which of course, as he would probably anticipate, we don't support. But that was a very interesting contribution by the minister. Really that contribution laid bare some of the architecture of the deals that are being done to stitch together this majority. First, it confirmed yet again what Senator Burston made clear when he stood in the second reading debate and said:
In return for our support for this bill, One Nation negotiated with the government for the term 'fair and balanced' to be part of the ABC's charter, increase its commitment to regional areas and to reveal the salaries of its top broadcasters, amongst other things.
Amongst other things! I wonder what the other things are, given that Senator Hanson, who isn't here in the chamber, has already called for a reduction in funding to the ABC. So it's pretty clear that a deal has been done with One Nation that is about attacking and gutting the ABC. The minister just said so. Senator Burston said so. What they won't tell us is all that is in it.
It also, frankly, shows two things. It shows something about Senator Xenophon and the Nick Xenophon Team's position. They are trying to wash their hands of the deal which has just been outlined. Were you party to it? You have it from the horse's mouth in here. The minister is very clear that the support of One Nation for the bill that you're supporting is contingent upon an attack on the ABC. You are complicit in it.
The final thing I'd say is this: I don't agree with Senator Bernardi on a few things—I think we probably both like Adelaide—but at least he's got the courage of his convictions. He's prepared to move an amendment on the issues that One Nation say they support. He's prepared to back it. Are they going to stay out of the chamber and hide because they want to make sure that the dirty deal stays quiet so as not to embarrass Senator Xenophon? Is that what's going to happen? I have to say those people who agree with One Nation's position, with which I fundamentally disagree, that there should be an attack on the ABC might question how fair dinkum they are if they don't come down to vote for Senator Bernardi's amendment. Oh, here they come—fantastic! They might question how fair dinkum they are if they're not prepared to come down and vote for this amendment and if all they want to do is hide in the shadows and do a deal that they hope might be delivered down the track. You should have the courage of your convictions and vote for an amendment that reflects your position. It's not one I agree with, but at least Senator Bernardi is being honest.
I can indicate we do not support Senator Bernardi's amendment. We do not support the propositions put by One Nation. Any legislative attempts for that will not be supported by us. I want to make that absolutely clear.
Senator Bernardi, I don't agree with your amendment at all, of course. However, you have belled the cat with what is going on here tonight. You've made it absolutely clear what at least part of this deal means for our public broadcasters and what those who are voting with the government tonight are handing the Australian people, and that is a massive whack and attack on the ABC, our public broadcaster. It is just irrational to argue that it's an isolated arrangement between Senator Fifield and the government on one hand and Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation on the other, totally separate to how other crossbenchers might vote or are voting on this legislation. It is absolutely nonsense and untrue to try to argue that the Nick Xenophon Team voting with the government doesn't facilitate and enable this attack on the ABC. It is the fundamental part of this package getting through. There is a reason that the government and One Nation went out and announced their deal before they had anyone else across the line. It is the fundamental grounding votes that they needed.
To argue that Nick Xenophon and his party are not complicit in this is ludicrous. No-one buys it. Everyone can see what's going on here. At least be up-front with people. In this place, far too often, we have debates around issues where people speak with conviction and they speak passionately, and far too often we get accused by the public of not being up-front. Here is an opportunity to show that you can be up-front, stand by your convictions and at least tell the public the truth. The truth is that you're enabling the deal and the attack on the ABC from One Nation by voting with the government tonight on this bill. That is actually what's going on here. It is absolutely what is going on here.
Of course, Senator Bernardi's amendments only go to some parts of this dirty deal with One Nation and the government. The remaining issue which was spoken about by Senator Fifield, in relation to the competitive neutrality review, really is the kick in the guts coming down the line to ABC and SBS. We all know what this is about. This is about restricting the public broadcaster from being able to do a good job in delivering online services to the Australian people, and that's because we have a bunch of commercial broadcasters who don't like the fact that iview and SBS On Demand are so popular. They hate it. They say they can't compete with it. Maybe deliver a better service, and people might watch your demand and streaming services. The idea that you're going to set up a review to hobble the ABC and SBS from being able to deliver services online through ABC iview and SBS On Demand is just terrible. The Australian people are not going to cop this very well. They're going to hate it. So at least be up-front about what you are doing.
The amendments put forward by Senator Bernardi go to some of the rankest and most obvious parts of this deal with One Nation. The competitive neutrality review isn't in his amendments, but that is what is being facilitated by this deal here tonight. I saw, while Senator Wong was speaking about whether One Nation were actually going to have the guts to vote for these amendments seeing that it is what they have begged the government to do, that they came into the chamber and then scuttled off. This is all about a personal vendetta that Pauline Hanson has against the ABC.
The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, I remind you to address senators by their correct names.
This is all about a personal vendetta that Senator Hanson and One Nation have against the ABC. She said it herself: she was sick of the ABC running stories about her and her party. Well, I'm sorry, but sometimes journalists will write things you don't like when you are a politician. It happens to the best of us. Suck it up, sunshine. But we see this attack being facilitated by Senator Xenophon, and then the Nick Xenophon Team senators are pretending that somehow they can wash their hands of it. No-one buys it. No-one's going to believe it. Be up-front and tell the public the truth.
I will be supporting Senator Bernardi's amendments because I want to see whether One Nation has the guts to come down here and support what should be theirs. I'll tell you right now. I'm going to call it out like Senator Bernardi has, and I can't wait to see the end result on this one. Quite frankly, if people were half serious out there, you would lock in the bill. You would have put that in already. So, let's face it: we all know what you're like down here. You always know when there are newbies in, because they have obviously still got their trust in you. Let's face it: when you offer something, it never ends up like the original deal. You never pay it out. The bottom line is that you think we're going to forget about it as we go along. I've had a few of them myself, and I haven't forgotten about them either, by the way. Next time you need a one-up deal, be prepared to deliver there and then on what you still owe me for the last two years, because right now there are no deals.
You are a disgusting bunch of individuals at times. You have no moral values. To go after the public broadcaster is an absolute disgrace. Absolutely! You'll give $30 million to others that are already making an absolute motza out there and you're going after and attacking our very own public broadcaster. What is that? Is it because they're one step ahead when it comes to iview and their social media platform? You're going to punish them for that? The rest of them should have seen this coming 10 years ago. They should have got with the bloody program of the 21st century. They've got their hand out saying, 'Help us, government.' This is crap. This is the worst lot of crap I have seen. I've never seen anything like it.
So I will be supporting you, Senator Bernardi, and I will be enjoying every bit of it. Don't tell anyone. I know it is going to kill our reputation. I'm right there with you. Let's see what One Nation is made of.
I scarcely know what to say. I genuinely thought I was alone in this. I'm always grateful for any support that can be cobbled together in the coalition. In the interests of facilitating the entree of the Senate, I will make some brief comments and then I will seek leave to do something.
Minister, you have basically outlined that you support every single one of these amendments, yet you also indicated that you are not going to vote for them. I find that extraordinary. You have your political reasons for doing it, but I do find it extraordinary. I do recognise and I certainly agree with you that, if we pass these amendments tonight, the commitment which the government has given to One Nation to conduct an inquiry into competitive neutrality would not be incorporated. That would have to be done as an extra—plus the other things that we don't know about. I'm dealing with the known knowns, at the moment. There are the known unknowns, or the unknown knowns—or however Donald Rumsfeld once said it!
I'm heartened by the support from Senator Lambie. I don't agree with all the sentiments that she put forward, but we rarely agree on anything. I don't even agree with all of these amendments, quite frankly, but I have read the standing orders and I'm compelled to vote for them. I want to put that on the record. But please do not refer to these as the 'Bernardi amendments'. This is the Burston-McKenzie amendment package. I am just the conduit, the vessel, through which they have been introduced into the Senate in the most effective and efficient manner that there can possibly be. That is what I seek to do. I seek to streamline government to minimise the bureaucracy and the duplication of it. This, I think, is one of those opportunities where we can demonstrate our commitment to integrity, honesty and transparency. With that, I seek leave of the Senate to also include amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 8253, with the amendment that I have moved already. Then we can perhaps put them as a package, with the concurrence of the Senate.
Leave granted.
I move amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 8253, in addition to amendment (2) on sheet 8253, and seek the support of the Senate:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 16), omit "Schedule 7", substitute "Schedules 7 and 8".
(3) Page 54, (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 8—Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Special Broadcasting Service
Part 1—Australian Broadcasting Corporation Rural and Regional Advisory Council
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983
1 Subsection 3(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Advisory Council )
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council established under paragraph 11(1) (a); or
(aa) the Rural and Regional Advisory Council established under paragraph 11(1) (b); or
2 Subsection 3(1)
Insert:
Rural and Regional Advisory Council means the Rural and Regional Advisory Council established under paragraph 11(1) (b).
3 Subparagraph 6(1 ) ( a ) ( i)
Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:
(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of regional and national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the geographic and cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and
4 At the end of subsection 6(1)
Add:
; and (d) to encourage and promote journalistic excellence in Australia, foster an environment conducive to the promotion of regional journalism and allocate the resources necessary to carry out the Corporation's functions and duties in rural and regional Australia.
5 After subparagraph 6(2 ) ( a ) ( iii)
Insert:
(iiia) the responsibility of the Corporation to maintain an effective presence across Australia, including throughout rural and regional Australia, consistent with its status as an independent national broadcasting service; and
(iiib) the responsibility of the Corporation to maintain regular transmissions of local content across a variety of platforms;
6 At the end of paragraph 6(2 ) ( a)
Add:
(vi) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of quality regional services to provide services that transcend commercial objectives so that the Corporation can meets its obligations to regional Australian areas with small populations; and
(vii) the expectations of communities in regional areas as to the frequency and content of broadcasts; and
7 After subsection 8(2)
Insert:
(2A) Before implementing any policy affecting regional areas the Board must consult:
(a) regional employee stakeholders; and
(b) the Rural and Regional Advisory Council.
Note: Details of the consultations undertaken under this subsection are to be included in the Corporation's annual report (see paragraph 80(ea)).
8 Subsection 8(3)
Omit "subsection (1) or (2)", substitute "subsection (1), (2) or (2A)".
9 Subsection 11(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(1) The Board must establish:
(a) an Advisory Council under the name Australian Broadcasting Corporation Advisory Council; and
(b) an Advisory Council under the name Rural and Regional Advisory Council.
10 After subsection 11(3)
Insert:
(3A) The functions of the Rural and Regional Advisory Council are:
(a) either on its own initiative or at the request of the Board, to advise the Board on matters relating to:
(i) the Corporation's broadcasting programs in rural and regional Australia; and
(ii) other matters relating to rural and regional Australia; and
(b) to conduct a biennial survey of rural and regional audiences relating to community satisfaction with the Corporation's broadcasting in rural and regional areas.
Note: The results of the survey are to be included in the Corporation's annual report (see paragraph 80(i)).
11 After subsection 11(6)
Insert:
(6A) In making appointments to the Rural and Regional Advisory Council, the Board must have regard to the desirability of including in the membership of that Advisory Council representation of individuals who reside in rural or regional Australia.
12 Subsection 11(10)
After "Advisory Council", insert ", or the Rural and Regional Advisory Council,".
13 Subsection 11(12)
After "Advisory Council", insert ", the Rural and Regional Advisory Council".
14 After subsection 12(5AB)
Insert:
(5AC) When appointing Directors referred to in paragraph (1) (b) or (c), the Governor-General must ensure that at least 2 of the Directors reside in regional areas.
15 Subsection 27(2)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(2) Subject to subsection (5), the Corporation must:
(a) broadcast daily from each broadcasting service regular sessions of news and information relating to current events within and outside Australia; and
(b) broadcast daily from each radio broadcasting service, at regular intervals, at least 5 radio bulletins that consist solely or primarily of regional or local news between the period:
(i) beginning at 5 am each day; and
(ii) ending at 8 pm each day.
16 After section 33
Insert:
34 The Corporation as an employer in regional areas
The Corporation must:
(a) ensure that there are procedures in place to ensure that emergency regional broadcasting events are staffed in accordance with occupational health and industrial safety standards; and
(b) employ a proportion of its employees in regional areas in support of greater per capita investment in rural and regional areas of Australia than population density and commercial aims would otherwise dictate.
17 After paragraph 80(e)
Insert:
(ea) particulars of any consultation undertaken by the Board during the period under subsection 8(2A); and
18 After paragraph 80(g)
Insert:
(h) particulars of any advice received by the Board during the period from the Rural and Regional Advisory Council; and
(i) if a biennial survey is carried out during the period by the Rural and Regional Advisory Council—the results of the survey; and
19 Paragraph 80(l)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(l) particulars of any significant changes during the period in transmission coverage, or transmission quality, of national broadcasting services provided by the Corporation:
(i) in Australia generally; and
(ii) in rural and regional areas; and
(m) particulars of the total number of employees at the end of the period aggregated by:
(i) location of employment; and
(ii) type of employment; and
(n) the percentage at the end of the period of the total number of employees that are employed in:
(i) regional areas; and
(ii) metropolitan areas;
(o) particulars of the average ratio of individuals employed by the Corporation as journalists to support staff in:
(i) regional areas; and
(ii) metropolitan areas; and
(p) particulars of the hours of local, rural and regional news broadcast, aggregated by broadcast area.
Part 2—Australian Broadcasting Corporation Charter and Remuneration
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983
20 After subsection 6(2)
Insert:
(2A) The Corporation shall take measures to ensure that broadcasting of programs for news and current affairs is fair and balanced.
21 Subsection 6(3)
Omit "under subsection (2)", substitute: "under subsections (2) and (2A)".
22 After section 33
Insert:
33A Reporting of ABC staff remuneration
(1) After 30 June 2018, the Corporation must publish an annual report of employees whose total remuneration exceeds $200,000 per annum.
(2) The report must include the name of employees, whose total remuneration, including salaries, allowances and other benefits paid by the Corporation exceeds $200,000 per annum
(3) The report must not disclose the actual amount paid to employees by the Corporation, but divide employees into classes, by increments of $50,000.
Part 3—Special Broadcasting Service Charter and Remuneration
Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991
23 After subsection 6(2)
Add:
(2A) SBS shall take measures to ensure that broadcasting of programs for news and current affairs is fair and balanced.
24 Subsection 6(3)
Omit "under subsection (2)", substitute: "under subsections (2) and (2A)".
25 After section 55
Insert:
55A Reporting of SBS staff remuneration
(1) After 30 June 2018, the SBS must publish an annual report of employees whose total remuneration exceeds $200,000 per annum.
(2) The report must include the names of employees, whose total remuneration, including salaries, allowances and other benefits paid by SBS exceeds $200,000 per annum.
(3) The report must not disclose the actual amount paid to employees by SBS, but divide employees into classes, by increments of $50,000.
The CHAIR: The question is that item (2) on sheet 8253 and items (1) and (3) on sheet 8253, moved by Senator Bernardi, be agreed to.
Senate adjourned at 2 3 : 02