I support paid parental leave. It is a great thing. These amendments to paid parental leave give small businesses a choice. The Commonwealth is picking up the tab but, as it currently stands, the administration of the scheme will fall on small business and that is so unfair. Small businesses do not have human resources departments. They neither have armies of accountants on their payroll nor do they usually have lawyers. In fact, the average number of staff they have is just three. If these changes to paid parental leave go through, and they should, they will put more red tape on the doorsteps of small-business owners once again. By the way, this is a scheme that small-business owners have no control over. They can be penalised for not properly administering it and that will put a heavy burden not only on their businesses but also on them personally.
Frankly, small-business owners are no different to other Australians. They are trying to run a small business, trying to do the right thing, they have family commitments of their own, and we're burdening them. Small-business owners will be penalised and held accountable for something they have no control over, which is really bad. As the owner of The Spotted Quoll told my office this morning, 'It feels like the government doesn't give a damn about us.'
Now the government can show they do care. These amendments will give small businesses a choice: they will be able to administer the scheme themselves or hand over the administration to Services Australia, which has 35,000 staff. This will give those small businesses who can't afford the additional burden of paid parental leave a way out. The workers will still get their paid parental leave, but small businesses won't have to administer it. That is all they are asking for. Social Services are great at this stuff. They have been doing it for years. They are already doing it.
I just want to know why the government, when it has the opportunity to cut red tape, is continually putting more and more red tape over them. Why? My question to you is: don't you like small business? Small businesses employ a lot of people and they just want to know why you won't give them a go. It is really unfair. We must give small businesses the choice to opt in or to opt out. We must not place another heavy burden on small businesses.
I acknowledge that the government has agreed to commit $10 million to help small business assist in the administration of this scheme, and I would like to acknowledge my fellow senator David Pocock and his team for working so hard to strike a balance between supporting workers and protecting small businesses from administering this scheme. I'd also remind Australians that it is what a strong crossbench can deliver. My office will continue to work constructively with the government, but they need to hear this message loud and clear, once again: small businesses already have way too much red tape on them; they don't need any more. You are driving them into the ground, and it is not worth it. Otherwise you're going to see the unemployment rate go up, and you're up for election in about 13 months time. That won't look pretty. They don't want the burden, so why put it on them when you have a department that already delivers the system? Why can't you pick this up? There is no excuse for not picking this up. Give them the choice to opt in or opt out. We're not asking a lot. Stop putting the heavy burden on small business, because, quite frankly, they've had enough, and they're doing it tough enough. I don't want to see any more small businesses driven into the ground because of the actions of the Labor government. They've had enough.
Like I said, you go on about having jobs for the country. I'll tell you what: you can eliminate a lot of jobs really quickly if those small businesses close their door. You may want to remember that, because they are the backbone of this country when it comes to business. They are it. We will continue to work hard with the government, but, seriously, the common-sense action would be to let them opt in and let them opt out. We're not asking for anything else. That's all we're asking for, and that's all small business is asking for. They're not asking for much at all.
]]>In Australia, we call freedom of information requests FOIs; in Tassie, we call them RTIs, right to information. Like the FOI system, Tasmania's RTI system is completely shattered. It is beyond broken. Tasmanians are more likely to have their right to information applications refused than any other Australian in this country. How's that for transparency? Both of the major parties love suggesting that voting for micros and Independents means instability. What they really mean is that they do not want transparency in Tasmania. They don't want anyone else to see the books, because quite frankly they're cooked. They don't want Tasmanians to know exactly how their tax dollars are being spent.
By the way, the Labor Party is just as bad down in Tasmania. You wait for the next federal election. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party in this house will be all over the media gobbing off about how they're the only ones who know how to govern. They're just scared about sharing power. That's why they've done a deal on donation reform which is just disgraceful. They want to control how microparties and Independents get funding, while keeping their entities, their shelf companies, their election money laundering businesses, going on and on while micros and Independents pay the price. I reckon Tasmanians are sick of this rubbish, and I think they know, as I do, what the majors are up to in Australia. I tell you what, it's not working too well for you. Wake up, Australians and Tasmanians. You want some transparency? Let's get it going.
]]>The textile, clothing and footwear sector is currently part of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, the CFMEU, after it did a merger with them in 2018. The textile, clothing and footwear sector is part of the CFMEU and has their greatest number of women. Many of these women are from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and many of them have had firsthand experience of exploitation, underpayment and unsafe conditions. After the merger, the textile, clothing and footwear sector moved into the CFMEU's offices.
One of the union secretaries told the Age newspaper about first meeting with the CFMEU. I quote:
"It was a male-dominated space," she recalls. "He just went on this big rant and there was fear if anyone tried to say anything it would have just got a lot worse."
We know who 'he' is, don't we? We do know that, don't we? 'He' is John Setka, of course, the Victorian State Secretary of the CFMEU—and you wonder why your membership's dropping. It was at this meeting that John Setka also made remarks about Australian of the Year and domestic violence advocate Rosie Batty. Setka told the meeting Ms Batty's advocacy work had lead to men having fewer rights. The textile, clothing and footwear sector representative said:
The Batty statement came towards the end of the meeting. "I just couldn't really believe it,"—
she said—
"Shocked, wanting to just really get out of the room, I wanted it to finish."
But the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union had merged with the CFMEU, and that also meant sharing office space. I'm feeling your pain, ladies. The union rep told the paper:
Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building.
After these comments were leaked to newspapers, John Setka went after his critics and hired private investigators to bug and follow them—such a pleasant bloke, isn't he? Many quit their positions or were forced out—what a bully. Setka rules the CFMEU with an iron fist. He likes to tell his colleagues:
You throw a stone at me and I'll throw a mountain back.
The mountain is coming, big boy, I can assure you, and I'm riding on it!
Once reports of Setka's comments were known, Sally McManus, Secretary of the ACTU; and Anthony Albanese, the then Leader of the Opposition, called for Setka's resignation. Setka's response was typical of his bullish behaviour:
For people to try to portray me as some misogynist pig—
which you are—
that bashes women is absolutely disgraceful, … I ain't going to wear that; that's just absolute bull …
But later, in June 2019, John Setka's attitude to women, specifically to his wife, was revealed following an incident from 2018. Following this incident, Victorian police charged Setka with 30 domestic violence charges, including recklessly causing injury and a pattern of harassment through breaching court orders and threats—who would have guessed? The arrest included 45 texts in which he called his wife horrible names using hateful, violent language—he obviously has no respect for women, but I think we all worked that out many years ago. Setka, of course, dismissed these texts as, and I quote, a 'few bad text messages'.
Shortly after, the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald revealed that a former deputy president of the Fair Work Commission, Anne Gooley, gave a statement to the police alleging that Mr Setka repeatedly intimidated and terrified his wife over several months. In her police statement, Anne Gooley said that she had witnessed Mr Setka's treatment of his wife and that:
Seeing John's anger … I was extremely distressed.
A few weeks before Christmas in 2018, Setka's estranged wife took out an intervention order against him. In sworn statements, she accused Setka of a pattern of violence and a campaign of harassment. She said she was under surveillance, including at home. On the day she got the intervention order, she put a safety device under her front door to stop Setka getting in. Anne Gooley, in her statement, said: 'When John arrived back at the house, he broke the door in while I was sitting in the front room of the house. I yelled out and she, Setka's estranged wife, ran into the downstairs bathroom and locked herself in.'
In late August 2019, Setka's estranged wife provided a new sworn statement to police, stating that they had 'started having a verbal argument and it was getting very heated and aggressive'. She said:
John was out of control. He hit my head against the table about five times … It was very painful. John is a lot bigger and stronger than me and he can totally physically control me. When he loses his temper, there isn't anything I can do but submit to him.
A journalist contacted Anne Gooley about the incident and, in her email response, she described Setka's conduct this way:
John's behaviour was not simply a few abusive emails or text messages … His conduct drove my friend out of her home and at one time out of the state. I was not surprised that John did not stand down or that he targeted those who did not support him as I never believed that he had any real insight into his behaviour. It was always someone else's fault or he downplayed his conduct.
Anne Gooley sat on the Fair Work Commission full bench that dealt with the ACTU's claim for paid family violence leave, a world-leading entitlement. She said the union movement had made significant progress on the issue of domestic violence but she was concerned about what message was being sent by Setka and his supporters. He is not alone. Welcome to the top of the CFMEU. Nothing's changed. She also said:
My concern about their support for John is the message this sends to those in the movement who experience family violence that their experiences will not be believed … It also tells those in the movement who are perpetrators of family violence that their conduct will be condoned.
So let's review what I have said. We have a union with thousands of women, many of them from non-English-speaking backgrounds. They want to be able to have a secret ballot to leave the CFMEU—and who can blame them?—to take control themselves. That's what they want. Who in here could in all conscience vote against these women? I would like all of the senators in here to go home and think about that deeply this evening. If your party is telling you to vote against this amendment, I want you to think about how you will feel about betraying these women. All the passionate speeches that I've heard in this place about domestic violence, all the speeches about how women should be empowered to take control over their lives, did you mean them and will you stand by your words for these women? Will you stand by your principles for these women? Will you stand up for these women? These women want to be demerged. I don't want to hear any rubbish tomorrow. I'm putting that amendment up and if, God forbid, after everything that has gone on in the last three or four years up here you don't stand up for these women—that goes for that side over there, the government and the Greens—your credibility will go down the drain just like that tomorrow. So I am putting it to you. I'm coming for that amendment and I want it supported. Give these women the freedom they want. Give them freedom from John Setka. God, we owe them that much.
]]>These are some of the biggest IR moves we've made in years in this chamber. This is what you are doing: you are shutting down democracy. What a kick in the guts! Fair dinkum! Whatever happened to being a fair government over this side? Whatever happened to that? You've left small business and businesses out there hanging, and the debate should be taken up in this chamber. If it means we have to sit in here for 48 hours and do that until it's over, then that's how it should be done. But, no, only when it suits you do you want to do those long hours. It's absolutely disgraceful.
]]>That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
"The need for the Australian Government to adhere to principles of transparency and accountability for good government instead of ignoring them"
I rise to speak to the need for the Australian government to adhere to the principles of transparency and accountability for good government, instead of ignoring them. I will say the last bit again: instead of ignoring them. When I'm out there with my boots on the ground, the thing people say to me the most is that they don't trust politicians. They don't trust them do the right thing. They don't trust them to choose the needs of the Australian people over their own, and they don't trust them to choose people over politics.
Polling done By the Australian Institute late last year found that three out of five Australians elected politicians, party officials and candidates were found to be the second-biggest threat to our democracy. Three out of five—isn't that just plain awful? We should be ashamed of ourselves. I know that I give a lot of my colleagues in this place a hard time, but I would also say that there are many politicians who are here for the right reasons. They believe in our democracy, and they believe in fighting for what is best for their communities. The problem is not them. The problem is the lack of transparency in our political system, especially when it comes to the major parties. Despite the Prime Minister's promise to lead a government with integrity and transparency, Australians are yet to really see that. Yes, we have a national anti-corruption commission, but that simply is not enough. We need real action on transparency, but I think it's clear that the last thing this government wants is transparency.
I brought a motion to the Senate last year asking for the Prime Minister's diary to be published. The Prime Minister's office has resisted multiple freedom of information requests to disclose his diary. Time after time, these requests have been refused. His office claims that seeing that PM's diary would divert the office away from its usual important tasks. What a load of absolute rubbish! The Premier of Queensland, the Chief Minister of the ACT and even the President of the United States all proactively publish their diaries, and I would suggest that the President of the United States has quite a few more important tasks before him.
Transparency and accountability are key principles of good government. They are what makes a country great and its democracy strong. According to the Prime Minister, we're about 18 months from the next federal election, and this government and this Prime Minister are running out of time to show the Australian people that they really believe in transparency and integrity. The last election saw a fall in the primary vote for the major parties. Australians voted in unprecedented numbers for Independents and micros. Many of those elected ran on a platform of integrity and greater transparency in our politics. This clearly scares the bejesus out of both major parties, and so it should. This government is working hard behind the scenes to lock down the system that worked so well for them. They are planning to change our electoral laws, and they are saying lots of reassuring things about putting donation caps on campaigns, which sounds good but, when Victoria did it, it wiped out Independent candidates. It's as simple as that.
The government is also talking about upping public funding. That is the amount the candidate receives for each vote that they get. It's your—taxpayers'—money. This was introduced by the Labor government and was meant as insurance against the possibility of corruption, but increasing the public funding will mean that major parties will run their candidates in electorates that they know they can't possibly win, but they will get enough votes to get the public funding so that they can spend more on the next election and the one after that. What this government is not talking about is doing anything about the transparency of the amount of cash that is funnelled through their entities. I think most Australians would understand the term 'money-laundering'. It's when you take dirty money obtained through crime and spend it in a legitimate business to 'clean' the money. That's basically what these political entities are; they are to funnel cash from big donors to candidates. It's basically electoral money-laundering. Both major parties have these entities. They are like shelf companies that are set up to hold events, take donations and funnel them back through the campaigns. There is no transparency on these entities and this government could do something about that right now.
This government and this Prime Minister could be bold and put real transparency measures into parliament and into our electoral system, but they probably won't because, despite what the Prime Minister says and what his government says, they don't want transparency. If they did, they would clean up the electoral funding system, get rid of those money-laundering entities and publish the Prime Minister's diary. Instead they just keep telling Australians, 'It's all fine—nothing to see here.' Australians are smarter than that. They see what you're doing and they see your lack of action. That's why I believe they will keep voting for Independents and microparties in record numbers, but you can wear that at the next election. Once Independents and micros have the balance of power in both houses, Australia will finally get, I can assure you, the integrity and transparency they deserve, and we will lead by example, unlike the government of today.
]]>That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience be extended to Thursday, 8 August 2024.
Question agreed to.
]]>It is killing me because, quite frankly, that's not how I feel.
This bill does something. It's a bill that introduces both technical oversight, like the very well respected US Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and a bit of—a bit of—political oversight of Defence, not nearly enough. You just don't learn, you people in here. In relation to the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, or the DOTE, as they are known, the reports they do are honest and publish the real state of US projects, not the snow job which—I'm putting it politely—we get at estimates. When I want to know what's going on with US equipment used by the ADF, I go to the DOTE reports. How embarrassing! I've got to go to their reports instead of our own. But it's better than nothing, I guess.
This bill, as much as it does not go nearly far enough, is about as good as it's going to get at this present time. I thank the committee for doing this inquiry, but what is really needed here is a major rethink; it is a major rethink. I cannot believe how many people that are in these major parties here at times are comfortable with a billion dollars being wasted, because, quite frankly, it is absolutely shameful. But what's even more shameful is that you are putting at risk our service men and women if they have to go to war, let alone the national security of this country.
What is needed is a hell of a lot more transparency. Defence is another organisation that is overly secretive for no reason but to cover its own behind, and it's secrecy that serves to hide all manner of all the projects since. All too often we see a project that is working perfectly one week being cancelled the next on account of long-term failures. I'll be supporting Senator Fawcett's bill and I congratulate him for doing it.
]]>Here are just a couple of examples. There's the Future Submarine project—$4 billion wasted on not getting a submarine—and the replacement nuclear submarine program, which is going to suck $368 billion from the defence budget. That's at the expense of other capabilities, and it will not deliver a sub until at least 2035, and I'm estimating it won't be delivered even then. It'll well and truly be over by then. The US military already predicts that China will seek to take back Taiwan in the next five years. Getting nuclear powered submarines halfway through the next decade is like putting together a great footy team after the grand final has actually been played. If conflict occurs in the Taiwan Strait and the government commits Australian forces, our submariners will be asked to go into a highly intense battle space in Collins class submarines that were supposed to be decommissioned from 2025. I know that the government is planning to extend the life of the Collins by upgrading its diesel engines, main motors and other platform systems. But recently, at Senate estimates, Defence conceded that it would not be possible to make the upgrades in the original two-year time frame and it's likely to take three or more years. Why does that not surprise me? Of course, that means the costs to the taxpayer out there will increase. Welcome to defence procurement, eh? You couldn't make this stuff up on Neighbours.
Then there's the Multi-Role Helicopter Program, another $3.8 billion wasted, and it was doubly wasted. Then there was the SkyGuardian, another cancelled program that has wasted 1.3 billion bucks and gone nowhere, and the Army's Battle Management System—there goes another billion bucks of taxpayers' money. The Spartan aircraft cost another $1.4 billion. The Tiger helicopter program cost another billion. But wait. There's more. I know. I really feel for you Australian taxpayers today. Then there's the Future Frigate Program, the program price of which went from $30 billion to $45 billion, and it looks like that may well be cancelled or scaled back. These are capabilities that either have not been received by us or have not met expectations. All this money has been wasted on capabilities that our frontline service men and women now have to do without. By the way, Defence has been asked to significantly increase the number of Defence Force personnel, but over the last five years those numbers have been going backwards.
Perhaps the best overall description of the waste in defence procurement comes from the Auditor-General's major project review. It's a shame it's not tomorrow, because tomorrow the Auditor will table his next Major projects report, and we'll be able to take a close look at his update. But in last year's report he detailed the fact that there have been 1,321 months of delay in major Defence programs. We often spend days in this chamber arguing over measures designed to save a few hundred million dollars, while over at Defence they're just shredding—and I mean shredding—billions upon billions of dollars in taxpayers' money. We have a rogue organisation—there is no nice way to put that—across the lake at Russell Offices. They take taxpayers' money and simply throw it away, with no accountability for their actions. What's new? There is no accountability for their actions, whether they are Defence or senior public servants, on waste of taxpayers' money. By the way, they still stay in their jobs. God! In fact, the truth is they're over there patting themselves on the back, saying what a great job they've done in wasting your money.
Also, while they're doing that, they're going: 'Whoa-ho! Let's nominate each other for the Order of Australia and other honours.' They love doing that stuff. Look at the Secretary of the Department of Defence. He just got one. He's responsible for the debacle I just described. Instead of punishing him, we give him medals. That's what we have done: we've given him medals. He, along with people like Major General Kathryn 'Robodebt' Campbell and Michael 'Political Text' Pezzullo, is devaluing the currency of these awards. That's what they're doing. These awards are worth—
There you go. Just give them awards. These awards—
]]>This is Parliament. It should set the standard for workplace culture, not the floor of what culture should be.
Who could possibly argue with that? But, as we have seen over the past few years, the standard of workplace culture in this place is not that flash. We have heard a lot of hair-raising stories about the culture of bullying and sexual harassment in this place. I'm not going to speak about this, because I can see that plenty of you have. What I do want to talk about is what the report says about 'long and irregular hours of work'—not something that will be touched by the government's industrial relations reforms, mind you, because none of those reforms apply to the people who work in parliament.
When this government was elected, one of its first acts was to take two advisers from every lower house and Senate crossbencher. At the time, the Prime Minister said that crossbench MPs shouldn't have twice the staff of government and opposition MPs. He also said that assistant ministers should get only two additional staff, according to the Prime Minister, and that it was not sustainable for crossbench MPs to have more. What the Prime Minister was ignoring and didn't bother to tell the public was this: assistant ministers have an army of public servants from their departments, not to mention the resources of the party machine, to draw upon. Crossbenchers do not have that. We have two advisers, who have to be across all the legislation coming through. That's our job, and I take that very seriously.
'Respect' is a word that appears on almost every page of the Set the standard report. But what was very clear to every crossbencher in the Senate and the House is that the Prime Minister has very little respect for the job we do, let alone our staff. And this was after the Prime Minister promised to treat the crossbench with respect. We usually get the legislation for each week's sitting in the last few days before the next sitting. Maybe they think that if the crossbench gets the legislation late then they won't bother to go through it; they will just wave it through. But that's something I will never do.
This means that my advisers have to work the weekend before a sitting, and they usually work the weekend in the middle of the sitting. That's 17 days straight by the time we have finished. So, we get all the bills a few days before they hit the Senate. This can mean that my team have to get across a lot of bills. Then there are the amendments, which, again, can be many, especially in a week like this, when we're doing IR. We have to dissect the amendments and then go back out and engage with the stakeholders, not to mention preparing speeches that accurately respond to the legislation in question.
And of course then there are estimates and the parliamentary business of the Senate, holding the government to account on behalf of the Australian people. Then there are the committees that we participate in, which are really important, especially if you are new and want to learn a lot more. That means going to as many hearings as you possibly can to get good at your job, reading all the submissions and, again, engaging with the stakeholders. I couldn't do any of that without the hard work of my team. It's my job to be across all this, and I work long hours and am paid well to do that job for the Australian people.
To be clear, I am not complaining, because I love my job—just as I did in uniform—and I find it an absolute privilege. My concern is for the health and welfare of my staff. When parliament is sitting, my staff regularly work 12- or 14-hour days and sometimes even longer. My electoral staff are also impacted by the sittings. If something happens or a bill is contentious, my office gets flooded with calls, and sometimes they can be extremely abusive. That means the electoral office staff have to take more of those calls, as well as the usual electoral and constituent calls. This doesn't include the hundreds of calls my office gets from veterans.
Recommendation 4 in the Set the standard report is about individual leadership:
To strengthen individual leadership to ensure a safe and respectful work environment …
How can I ensure a safe environment when I don't have enough staff? How can I ensure a safe environment when my staff are often sleep deprived? Doctors will tell you that not having enough sleep impacts your health and wellbeing. If this government really wants to set the standard then giving the crossbench members and senators the staff we need is critical not just for us but for their own wellbeing. Is showing the crossbench and our staff respect really that hard? Seriously!
Question agreed to.
]]>That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to Medicare.
Last year the Minister for Health and Aged Care announced the biggest investment in bulk-billing in the history of Medicare. At the time, the minister said the Labor government had tripled incentives for GPs to bulk-bill. What he didn't say is that you only get bulk-billed if you're a pensioner or a child with a concession card. According to an investigation in Tasmania's Examiner newspaper today, some medical clinics are asking new patients to pay full fees. One practice in Launceston is apparently begging people to pay the surgery directly, stating on its website, 'We receive no government funding at all.'
Tasmania has the lowest rate of bulk-billing in Australia, despite the fact that Tasmanians are the sickest and most poorly paid people in the country. The government and the minister have been patting themselves on the back as the figures for the first two months of the policy have come in and there has been a 2.1 per cent increase. That's great, but what happens if you're not a pensioner or a child? Then, it seems, you can't get bulk-billing in Tasmania.
I have a very dear old schoolfriend who has battled with mental illness for years. She's on a disability support pension. She called me last week. She was absolutely beside herself because she can't get bulk-billed. She couldn't afford to see her GP because she couldn't afford the gap payment, and that meant she couldn't get the critical prescription filled that she needed. I gave her the money—that's not a problem. But how many other Tasmanians still can't afford to go to the doctor? Too many. How many can't afford to get that vital prescription? Too many. How many are ignoring or putting off dealing with nagging pain? Too many.
Australia prides itself on a fair-go attitude, but, if you are a retired Australian or a low-income family in a rural or regional area, there doesn't seem to be a fair go for you when it comes to health care. In fact, the best indication of your health is your postcode. Rich people live longer because they can afford to pay. The government's website says:
Medicare is Australia's universal health insurance scheme. It guarantees all Australians … access to a wide range of health and hospital services at a low or no cost.
But that's not quite true, is it? Because not everyone can afford to pay. Maybe the government should change the front page of the website to reflect the reality of our healthcare system. I reckon it should say something like, 'If you want to be healthy, you had better be wealthy,' because that's exactly where this country is at.
Question agreed to.
]]>