Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Tonight I spoke to members of Fossil Free UNSW. They answered my phone call from the UNSW council chambers in the university's chancellery. They are occupying that section of the university. I congratulate these students. They are taking the action that MPs in this parliament should be giving leadership on.

Our planet is overheating, and coal is a key culprit. In Australia coal is the key problem. We know that around the world fossil fuels are driving climate change at an incredibly fast rate. Back in this parliament we see Liberal, National and Labor MPs taking fuel donations. They are approving coalmines. They are inviting representatives of these companies to their fundraisers, and too often MPs of those parties are then taking jobs in the fossil fuel industry. The relationship is insidious, particularly when we consider the consequences of climate change that are already rolling out.

But the people's fight-back is inspiring. I would like to share with you what the students occupying the UNSW chancellery have said. In their official statement they say:

'UNSW must choose our future over the fossil fuel industry. I pledge to take bold action if UNSW does not commit to divest by 15th April 2016.'

That is why a number of these students are occupying the building as we speak. Their occupation has gone on for more than 36 hours. They say—

Our movement is escalating. Students and staff at UNSW are part of a national campaign to move Vice-Chancellors to make the right decision and dump their fossil fuel investments.

UNSW is actually my old university, and I was on the council for a period, so I know the room where they are. I do urge the Vice-Chancellor, Ian Jacobs, to meet with the students and to work with them to achieve the divestment—to be on the right side of driving action on the critical issue of climate change. It surely should be his priority.

This action at the UNSW is part of national and international actions that are happening at campuses around the world. It is called Flood the Campus in Australia, and they are calling for a divestment from coal, oil and gas. In Queensland, the University of Queensland's chancellery was occupied yesterday, and I understand that the vice-chancellor there agreed to talk to students about divestments. Already at the Australian National University and Monash University there have been partial divestments. Again, I congratulation students and staff who have taken such important action.

As I said, this is rolling out around the world. I understand that there are over 60 universities who have moved to divest—some of them are the Edinburgh, California, Oxford, Glasgow and Stanford universities—again as a result of people coming together and putting pressure on the senior management at those universities. Right now I understand that many universities around the world are taking action in solidarity. I have spoken of some here. Overseas I understand that New York, Colombia and Harvard universities are taking this action.

It is significant that in a few days time countries will sign the Paris Agreement to ensure that our temperature does not rise to the dangerous levels that have been predicted if nothing is done. While there were many aspects that were unsatisfactory about the Paris Agreement—it did not take the fossil fuel industry on, as it should have—it is still a warning to the fossil fuel industry that its time has come. Yes, this industry has made a great contribution to our societies and our economies over many decades, but we now know the problem. We know there is another way. That is why these students—as students have done over many decades, over centuries—are again leading the most important movement that we have today.

On another matter, today I met with the victims of asbestos-related diseases. I have met with victims before—people who have lost loved ones, people who suffer from asbestos-related diseases themselves. I always find it very moving. Today it was not just moving; it was quite troubling to hear what they had to say. I became aware that the Turnbull government is putting the brakes on the vital work of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency.

I met with women who have lost their husbands. I met a young woman who contracted mesothelioma as a young girl—she just picked it up from where she was living. I was told of a very disturbing and what I believe is a heartless approach from the Turnbull government. Before I go into the details of that, I congratulate the Asbestos Victims Association, the Asbestos Disease Support Society and the Asbestos Diseases Foundation. Their work is critical in taking Australia to the next stage of managing these insidious diseases, because while we have had incredible advances in assisting people with diseases we now know that we could have another wave of tens of thousands of people being affected by asbestos related diseases. In fact, Australia has one of the highest incidences of asbestos related diseases in the world. Around 700 Australians die each year from mesothelioma and more die from lung cancer and other asbestos related diseases.

Proper management is needed. It is quite staggering that tens of thousands of Australians could be exposed and diagnosed with asbestos related diseases in the future. This brings us back to the issues that were raised with me today. Really, it is one of those aspects of government work that one should not even have to come into this chamber and talk about; it should be so easy for the government to get on and do the job. The issue is the funding of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. I congratulate Labor for setting up the agency, recognising it was needed to identify possible products containing asbestos coming into Australia. It is not just building products that are affected. I found out today that asbestos has been found in children's crayons and, for people who have children or grandchildren, in Dora the Explorer toys. Those are very popular young people's, mainly young girls', figures. There are books, toys et cetera. They have found asbestos in these toys and have had to have them removed. This is incredibly serious, and this very important organisation ASEA is ready to do the research, ready to give the leadership to deal with this potential growth.

The immediate issue is that ASEA is ready to work with the Australian Border Force in ensuring that these products do not come into Australia, and dealing with them if they do. But what is very shocking, and I do see the cruel side of the government here, is that it is refusing to sign off on $3 million—only $3 million—that has already been allocated. It is not new money. It is money that is sitting there but, for various reasons, the Minister for Employment is saying that she needs to have a review before this money can be given. I have to say that this week we have seen that this government, whose main tactic for the past weeks and since we have come back here, has been blatantly anti-union and in fact anti-worker. You have to think there is a connection here. I spoke briefly with the minister today; I am sure she would deny that. Why would she not just get on with the job and ensure that these few process issues are dealt with?

What has the minister come up with? As I said, delay. The agency sought approval from the minister. I understand that was forwarded to the Department of Employment, which assessed the agency's funding as being sufficient. They are saying that it does not need this extra money that has been allocated. That was despite the CEO of the agency, Peter Tighe, advising Senate estimates on 11 February this year that the lack of funding is preventing the agency implementing the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Management and Awareness. It had to have a plan, it got the plan, the money was allocated and now the government is saying, 'That last $3 million is not available. We've got to review the whole thing again.' Why would you do that when it has all been approved, particularly on this issue that is so critical?

On 30 March this year, Minister Cash announced that she had commissioned a performance and financial review of the agency. That is the review she has in place. The time frame for the review is five weeks. When we had the informal chat today she mentioned this to me. Let us remember what is going to happen in the next five weeks: an election is going to be called. If that election is called the review will be delivered during the caretaker period, which would leave the situation unresolved for months. We cannot afford that. This agency is sitting there with money to pay staff but no money for the staff to carry out their work, work they are supposed to be getting on and doing under the national strategic plan.

I had very thorough discussions with the people from the various asbestos groupings, as well as with victims who are part of many of these groups and who follow this so closely. They all said that a review is not needed. The issue is simple. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the agency was unable to spend the $3 million to implement the national strategic plan. These circumstances and the agency's current financial position have been dealt with in at least two Senate hearings. Questions have been asked and it has become quite clear that it is time for the money to be released. Seriously, this is the issue: I know Mr Turnbull has a million things to do, but this disease is insidious and it affects so many people. Surely the right thing should be done here.

I would urge the minister in particular not to hide behind the review, because it is a ruse. The minister told me today that she is concerned about asbestos, and I believe her—I think everybody would. But if that is the case the minister should be demonstrating her concern and have the $3 million released now. Otherwise, the election is going to be called and the Turnbull government will be causing more delays and more suffering, and that simply is the wrong approach at this stage.

On another matter, Australia has been awash with corruption related stories in recent weeks. So many of those stories that have broken have given us a window into how the wealthy operate, how they live, how they protect their money and how they ensure they do not pay taxes. It was an insight into that world that ordinary people rarely get. Meanwhile, Liberal, National and Labor MPs in this parliament have continued to deny the need for a national corruption watchdog. I would really say there has been no significant debate about the many scandals that have exposed how the very wealthy make their money, how they hide their money, how they fail to pay taxes and how they get away with it.

Again this week we have seen the Turnbull government fill up the time with debate on unions and workers. I have often come in on that debate and commented that the point about bringing forward the ABCC is to weaken unions and undermine the ability for workers to organise collectively. I would add that there are other reasons to it. It is about running cover, because the constituents of this Liberal-National government are the people who have insight into their world—how they make their money, how they protect their money. I would argue that the very unsavoury tactics we have seen play out in this parliament have a lot to do with running cover. We have seen extraordinary exposures of corruption, but we are not dealing with them here in a very thorough way. It is about distracting attention from the exposure of serious crimes which should be investigated. When you are failing to pay millions of dollars in tax and when you are running various schemes to hide your money—much of it is illegal and if it is not illegal, it is highly unethical—we should be working on what laws are needed to ensure that the right thing is done.

It is worth reminding ourselves, as we finish what was supposed to be a three-week session of parliament in two days, about some of those scandals which should have been major issues for this parliament to consider. There is Leighton Holdings, which has been caught up in the Unaoil scandal. This company is one of the main players in the delivery of Westconnex, a totally unwarranted, irresponsible motorway project right in the heart of the city. It is a con job that goes back to Labor days and is now continued by the Liberals and the Nationals. It is being presented as a solution to transport problems in Western Sydney, but it is not about Western Sydney; it is about connecting to motorways which are getting very close to Sydney's CBD. Here we have a company which is regularly associated with corrupt practices overseas and which is a major player in the $16.8 billion Westconnex project. The company has been plagued by allegations of bribery and corruption overseas to win government contracts. Interestingly, they are also major donors to the Liberal, Labor and National Parties. Since 2005 it has donated $1.3 million to those three parties. What have we seen at the same time? We have seen that company pick up significant government contracts. It donated $150,000 to the federal and New South Wales branches of the Liberal Party just before the last state election.

Then there are the famous Panama papers—surely we should have spent at least a whole day debating them and working out how to respond to them. There is so much data we need to get into to find out the implications for Australian corporations and what should be done about it, because so much money is being ripped out of Australia. But the issue has barely been mentioned. The Mossack Fonseca have been instrumental, I have to say, in putting the spotlight that web of arrangements through which the wealthy learn to protect their wealth, their privilege, their power. What we are talking about is the use of tax havens, which shield corruption, money laundering, tax evasion and other criminal activities. I would call those things 'criminal activities', even if there are no immediate laws against them. As I said, they are unethical and we should be bringing in laws to ensure that people pay their fair share.

It is fair enough that people accumulate wealth but they should pay their fair share to this society. I understand about 11 million documents were released in this latest download. They revealed about 800 Australians who were clients of Mossack Fonseca. I understand that some of them are already under investigation in tax avoidance cases; 80 of them have been identified in the Australian Crime Commission's database for serious and organised crime. So that is a start—some work has been done there—but, considering the amount of material that has been released, we should be looking at the lessons that could be learnt here. How do we improve the laws?

Again I need to say that, while it is not illegal to set up these offshore companies, it links these various companies and businesses with corrupt practices and criminal activities. It is significant that the Australian company Wilson Security was found to be involved in a Hong Kong corruption scandal as a result of the Panama papers leak. They have extensive ties with the Australian government through their security operations in the Manus Island and Nauru detention centres. That is something we should be giving a lot of attention to. There is a wealth of information there that should be looked at.

Then there is all the work around political donations which I have spoken often about and which we still give inadequate time to. We know that the laws shield the political parties. Coming into this election, people will not know who has given money and how much they have given to political parties and candidates fighting in this election, because disclosures do not have to be made until 1 February in the following financial year. It is another way to limit people's scrutiny and people's understanding of who is trying to influence political outcomes. I also note that Australia's reputation as a transparent country free from corruption is in jeopardy. Transparency International has found a four-year slide in the rankings on its 2016 international corruption index for Australia. That is why we need to get the debates into this place. We need to work out how we are going to deal with corruption because, right now maybe we do not talk about them, there are big problems and we have a responsibility to deal with them.

The Senate adjourned at 22:22