Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to make a contribution to this debate. But before I do I would like every single person in Australia to hear what I have to say. It should be of no surprise, because it is on my declaration of interests. We have a responsibility to report each time that we receive accommodation or gifts or travel or hospitality or whatever it may be.

I have been lucky enough to be the longstanding chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport—firstly of the legislation committee, while we were in government, and of the references committee, while we were in opposition. I have had 11 years on the committees, 8½ of those chairing, and I use every opportunity to increase my field of knowledge re agriculture. And one of the greatest opportunities that I have had, as chair of the Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, is to see for myself and meet with those engaged in agriculture, particularly in our largest trading areas. I have done that through Malaysia. I have touched on it in Vietnam. I have done it in the EU. I have had the pleasure of doing it in Indonesia, and also in China. And therefore, as my register of interests clearly shows, I have participated in two trips to China. And those two trips to China were funded—one, by the Yuhu group, which is no stranger in this building, particularly on that side of the chamber because of massive donations, and on this side of the chamber, because we have also received donations from Yuhu. That is all above board and all listed.

I will go on to talk about and reiterate some of the conversations of yesterday—and I was in your position yesterday, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall—when Senator Bernardi went on the attack on Senator Dastyari. I want to add to the conversation.

There is nothing illegal with members of parliament going on funded trips around the world, to wherever it may be—but declaring it, so there is no chance of secretive deals, or favours, or whatever it may be. The sad part is: the majority of decent, hardworking Australians just cannot stomach the thought of politicians spending their money on trips. It is true. I do not argue; I think the same thing. So the trips I went on to China were not taxpayer-funded. But I tell you what: we visited western China and we had a fantastic insight into agriculture.

I also have, on two occasions, visited the premises of Huawei. Now, don't hang me on this, for crying out loud: I cannot remember if it was Shanghai—no, it was not Shanghai; I think Shenzhen was one, and maybe Beijing. But, anyway, the photographs are there. I proudly said, 'I'm here; I'm at Huawei.' Why wouldn't I? They are a massive contributor to Australia's telecommunications. And this is just from a floppy backside backbencher, but I tell you what: I am open to talk to anyone. I am the first one to come back from China, and you ask my blackfella mates in the Kimberley and they will tell you I will annoy the living daylights out of them, particularly when I have the ability to visit the Port of Huizhou in the province of Guangdong, because they have built a live export facility. Millions and millions of dollars has been put into this live export facility because they want to import Australia's cattle. We visited when it was just a slab, but they are also building 500 metres from the port where the cattle can come off—I would rather have boxed meat anyway because it is Australian jobs and it is less cruel, but, unfortunately, live export is part of our economy. That is it. We cannot get away from that. But they walk the cattle down. The whole idea is for biosecurity reasons. They can take them straight to the abattoir where they will be processed.

So my first response on them doing that is, 'How can I get back to the Kimberley, to the best part of Australia?' Actually, the west is the best, but the Kimberley is the crown in the jewel. 'And how can I, who has worked closely with Kimberley Aboriginal Pastoralists Association, with the 22 Aboriginal owned properties in the Kimberley, facilitate some opportunity for Australian Aboriginal owned stations to have access to conversations about how they can be part of the trade deal with meat to China?' I say that straight up front. I have annoyed the living daylights out of my Aboriginal mates doing that and I will continue to do that too.

But the conversations that we are hearing in this chamber today—there is an old adage that we all learnt when we came in here, when we were first met by those diligent protectors of the Senate and the Australian Labor Party, Senators Faulkner and Ray, and it was very clear. If you can live with whatever decision you make or wherever you go or whoever you meet being on the front page of The Tele or—what is the Melbourne paper? Hey, what is your Melbourne paper?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Herald Sun.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks. I am from the west. The Herald Sun. I did not mean to say 'hey'; I meant to say, 'Excuse me, Senator Collins, but I'm stuck.'

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hey you!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But if you can live with that then go ahead and do it. So every single decision I have made as a Western Australian Labor senator—proudly—and every decision I have made in terms of hospitality, accommodation, travel or whatever, as I do as the Chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, I declare. I want people to know where I have been. I want people to know who I have been meeting with. Whether I am in the United States with the great Teamsters union—it does not matter where I have been, because I always walk into this place and deliver a speech about what I have been up to. I believe that is the only way.

My dear old father, who is reaching his 84th year, said to me back in the seventies in his broken English, 'Never, ever lie to me.' I said, 'Why is that, Dad?' He said, 'Because you don't have a good memory, so I'll catch you out,' and I have lived by that creed. But, I hear the attacks on Senator Dastyari, who is a very influential member of the Australian Labor Party, the Australian community and this Senate, because he slipped up. Senator Dastyari slipped up, and no-one feels worse about it than Senator Dastyari. And the silly thing is he slipped up on something that has no defence. We cannot defend it, and Senator Dastyari is the first one to tell you he could not defend it. He thought it would be okay if he declared it. I am not going to sit here and put the boots into Senator Dastyari. I am going to put my arm around him because there is a lot worse that happens on that side of the chamber. I will never, ever defend corruption. I will be the first one out there. I will throw rocks at you if you are called corrupt, don't worry about that, and you have the ability to do it to me too, but let's get to the crux of some of the accusations coming here.

Senator Dastyari has repaid the money to the Chinese business, which he should. He has also had a $3½ thousand haircut because he has had to pay the travel allowance bill, which he has done. Good on you, Sam. Well done. You have owned up. You have done it. Let's get on with it, because we politicians are an embarrassment to the Australian populace at the best of times, but to stand here undressing ourselves as we are doing now, how can the Australian people have confidence in us? It hurts us, because the majority of us in this place and the other place are decent, hardworking people. We are decent members of the community, and most of us come into this building with our hand on our heart, wanting to deliver the best outcomes for the people that have actually walked into a ballot booth and put a 1 beside our name.

People think this is a clever display of Australia's parliament working. It is absolutely disgraceful. But you had better be careful when you start throwing mud, because it comes back and, when it comes back, in my experience watching it in this place for 11 years, it comes back at twice the rate and twice the speed. I am now, unfortunately, going to put myself in the political gutter because you lot started it over there. You want to have a ding-dong battle. Just remember one thing: if you are going to go into a punch-up in the pub, you are going to get a bloody nose. So let's start on the member for Curtin, shall we?

I will tell you why I picked the member for Curtin: it is because there are accusations against Senator Dastyari in relation to Yuhu and Huawei but in 2012 the member for Curtin, Ms Julie Bishop, received airfares, hospitality, accommodation and a tablet computer from Chinese tech company Huawei. You know what? I am not going to repeat myself, but I have received flights and accommodation too. I have visited Huawei twice—proudly. 'No worries; show us what you do. Telecommunications? Great. That's how the world works.' I never, ever was highly regarded enough to get a MediaPad tablet. Anyway, that is fine; I think Huawei worked out I would have enough trouble turning it on, let alone doing anything else with it!

Ms Bishop is the Minister for Foreign Affairs, so Ms Bishop is the face of Australia in the international community. Fine. But Ms Bishop is also very, very active in the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party. She is well known. It is documented she wears some fantastic, really smart clothing and jewellery, and it is normally accompanied with a photo showing that it has been donated by so and so. And, okay, that is fine as long as she is putting it on her register. That is okay; you can do that. But she has also managed over the last couple of years to attract no less than $600,000 in donations to the Western Australian Liberal Party—just the WA branch, of course—from three Chinese companies. You might say, 'Yeah, big deal.' And it should not be a big deal. It should be all declared, and people should know straight away where this money has come from. But it becomes a big deal when they want to attack the integrity of Senator Dastyari while hiding behind a pile of manure on their side.

So let's have a look at the $600,000, where it came from and who they were. I will get to the companies in a minute. We have to be very mindful of a newspaper article of 26 August, written by Gina McColl and Philip Wen, which said:

Several of the donations have been obscured by the channelling of funds via executives or related companies, or by the donors' failure to disclose them to the Australian Electoral Commission, in apparent breach of Commonwealth law.

What has Ms Bishop got to hide? She has gone out and got $600,000. What have the WA Liberal Party got to hide? They set the rules. We sit in here and we have the argy-bargy. Every couple of government terms, they have a blue over donations—in fact, we were blueing over foreign donations before we left here in May, for that successful double dissolution election! That is tongue in cheek, Mr Acting Deputy President. The article went on to say:

A spokesman for the AEC acknowledged a loophole in Australia's disclosure laws, saying: "While the commission can seek compliance, overseas donors cannot be compelled to comply with Australian law when they are not in Australia".

Ms Bishop refuses to respond to questions about how she handled potential conflicts between her responsibilities as a party fundraiser and as a foreign minister, a very senior minister. The article went on:

A spokesperson said that donations to the WA branch were "a matter for the party".

No, Ms Bishop, it is not a matter for the party. It is a matter for the people of Australia. That is why we have laws that say very clearly that, if you put your hand out and receive financial donations to do whatever you want to do with them, you have to actually say who they have come from and where they have come from. We all live by that creed. Why is the foreign minister any different? I will tell you why I think the foreign minister is different—and I would be rapt if there were a tsunami of Liberal senators who came in here and attacked me, because I tell you what: one against 30 will be a great number, because what I have to say is undeniable. So, while you are flinging mud on that side, let's really roll up our sleeves.

The foreign minister, Ms Bishop, has got form in this area. I remember, coming from Western Australia, we used to have a RAAF jet that was put on. It was negotiated between the Senate and the House of Representatives because, back before my time, Western Australia did not have a direct flight to Canberra. So the RAAF jet would fly from Canberra on a Sunday afternoon. It would land in beautiful Perth and it would wait for the senators and members to stroll out and to say goodbye to their families. It would give them a golden opportunity—because senators and members of all states really do give a commitment to be here and they miss out on a lot of family stuff. We do not whinge about it—that is what we are elected to do. But us West Aussies, if we wanted to, could jump on that direct flight and come to Canberra. That is fine. Have I been on the RAAF jet? Yes, I used to utilise the RAAF jet. It was fantastic. When my kids were still at home, absolutely I utilised it, so I could get Sunday afternoon at home. As my kids grew up, left home and starting having their own lives, I stopped using it—about five years ago. Now I use Qantas or Virgin.

The RAAF jet got exploited. A previous defence minister in this building thought it was a great idea to put the RAAF jet on a day before the first day of sitting of the Abbott government, to put all the Western Australia Liberals and their wives on board. We used to take staffers if there was room, but there was no room for staffers—it was a big family affair. That is nice for the families, but what is wrong with catching a $2,000 Virgin or Qantas flight? I will tell you what it used to cost. It was about $33,000. So the 'gravy plane', as it was named, through some diligent work by the Western Australian reporters here in this building was exposed. It was absolutely rorted. It was embarrassing. So it was canned.

But guess what. All of a sudden, back in December 2015—so we are not talking about long ago—Ms Bishop was in Perth and she was required—I am not making this up; it is all written out here—to be back in Canberra the next day for a cabinet meeting. Lo and behold, surprise, surprise, cabinet ministers actually do spend a lot of time in Canberra, because that is what they are paid to do. They also have a very, very handsome remuneration package, as we do. They get an extra $100,000, or something like that—and most of them work hard enough and they deserve that, and good luck to them. Some are actually stealing it off the taxpayer, but that is another story. So what did Ms Bishop do? She said she had something to attend in Perth. We all have something to attend to in Perth on Sundays. But Ms Bishop thought it was a fantastic idea, as the foreign minister, to roll the RAAF jet out of political cotton wool, knock off the mothballs, get it catered up with some food and drink so it could leave Canberra on a Sunday arvo, with no-one else on it, whoosh over on a beautiful flight across the Nullarbor, land in Perth and sit around—tick-tock, tick-tock. Then, 'Here come the foreign minister and the boyfriend,' to get on the taxpayer-funded $30,000 slush ride back to Canberra so she can turn up in the nation's capital to do what she is normally paid to do, while the rest of the cabinet, the rest of the senators and the rest of the ministers get out there, get on their computers, ring Qantas and Virgin and say, 'Book our flights.'

I would love to hear Ms Bishop's excuse. She got away with this. She is the same minister who quashed it for the Western Australians. I did not give a damn. I thought, 'Quash it.' I would rather be on a Qantas jet, because I can defend the $2,000, when you really start thinking about it getting exploited. But for those with young families, good luck. They have all lost it. But, my goodness me, it is all right for the queen of largesse to spend $30,000 of taxpayers' money so she can stay in Perth a little bit longer—and then plonk the boyfriend on.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many empty seats?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'How many empty seats?' I am asked by Senator Collins. By my rough calculations, about 24. I have got to tell you: they are this wide. So there you go. There's a $30,000 smack in the mouth to the taxpayer. This lot think it is great stuff, it is fantastic and it is intelligent.

What else can we do? We will go a little bit further, shall we? Let me talk about another thing which sort of fell under the radar but it now needs to be exposed. This goes back a number of years, to 2013, when Ms Gina Rinehart—I have no relationship with Ms Gina Rinehart. I have never met Ms Gina Rinehart. She has not picked up the phone and said, 'Glenn, do you want to catch up for a coffee?' I have not picked up the phone and said, 'Ms Rinehart, do you want to catch up for a shandy?' I have not done that. But she thought it was a great idea. She had to go to a wedding—it is written here in the paper that she was going to a wedding in India being attended by 10,000 people. She was ready to sign a billion-dollar contract with the bride's grandfather to supply iron ore. So what does she do? She writes to a few people and says, 'How would you like to come on my chartered jet to India and, while you are at it, come to this random wedding.'

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did you get a guernsey?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No I did not, and I would not have gone. If I had been checking out agriculture I would have said, 'Yes, cool, let's have a look at it.' A number of coalition members or senators went on the plane. One of them was Ms Bishop. So Ms Bishop goes on the flight, along with former Senator Joyce—Mr Joyce—and the other one was Ms Teresa Gambaro. This is amazing. Martin Ferguson was invited, but he said, 'This is not a good look; I am not going, thank you.' You have to understand that when they came back some of them got off the private jet and got on the $5,500 taxpayer funded jet. Mr Joyce was on that jet, and he had two meetings in Malaysia for two hours. He said that, gee whiz, there were some economic challenges in rural Malaysia. I have seen rural Malaysia, but I have been at 33,000 feet. How do you tell from 33,000 feet? If that side wants to start throwing mud, we can all roll-up our sleeves and have a fair dinkum crack. Ms Bishop is one of the worst offenders. (Time expired)

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General's speech marking the opening of the 45th Parliament. I once again acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay my respects to the elders both past and present. In my first official speech to this Senate during the 44th Parliament I made this statement, which I proudly repeat again today:

I acknowledge and pay my respects to Australia’s Aboriginal traditional owners. I share their blood, culture and history through my mother’s, Sue Lambie’s, family. We trace our history over six generations to celebrated Aboriginal chieftain of the Tasmania east coast, Mannalargenna.

Following that statement a member of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre complained about my claim and my family's claim to Indigenous heritage. As you are about to discover, Mr Acting Deputy President, the system for recognising Indigenous heritage and identity is very different and more complicated in Tasmania than in other Australian states; however, the TAC member's argument was essentially this: if he and his mob didn't recognise my Indigenous heritage then I simply wasn't Indigenous. While that argument personally hurt my family, it also gave me an opportunity to thoroughly investigate the process by which Tasmanians are officially afforded recognition of Indigenous heritage by their state government.

Before I provide the detail of my investigation, it is worthwhile briefly and broadly commenting on the history of Indigenous Tasmanians. Noted Australian historian and academic Henry Reynolds says it best in the foreword to a new book by Murray Johnson and Ian McFarlane, Van Diemen's Land—An Aboriginal History. Mr Reynolds points out:

They—

Indigenous Tasmanians—

had lived in isolation for as many as 300 generations after the flooding of Bass Strait. The earliest occupation of what had been the Tasmanian Peninsula went back 30,000 years into the heart of the Ice Age.

After the destruction of Tasmanian Indigenous society by a bloody frontier conflict of the 1820s and early 1830s, Mr Reynolds writes:

Generations of Tasmanians consequently grew up with the belief that there were no Aborigines on the Island. The truth of the matter was a further cause of interest in Island history. The emergence of an assertive, self-conscious Aboriginal community in the middle years of the twentieth century was a confounding experience for the wider community.

Following the personal attack by members of the TAC I was horrified to discover, after many questions in this place, meetings with the federal minister for Indigenous affairs, research and overwhelming community feedback that I was not the only Tasmanian to be discriminated against and defamed by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre.

Official statistics provided by the federal government—and then finally by the Tasmanian state government, which tried for so long to cover up this scandal—showed that approximately 20,000 Tasmanians with strong Indigenous heritage and who were officially recognised and funded by the federal government were denied recognition by the TAC and consequently the Tasmanian state government.

For decades the Tasmanian government along with the TAC had taken Commonwealth funding for up to 26,000 people, while only recognising up to 6,000 people. Of course this means that up to 20,000 Indigenous people were denied their identity and heritage by the Tasmanian state government and the TAC. It leaves many unanswered questions, but one of the most important questions is: what happened to the billions that were allocated by the Commonwealth government for up to 26,000 Indigenous Tasmanians when money was spent on only 6,000 Indigenous Tasmanians?

I am happy to report that the Tasmanian state government, after a lot of pressure from me in this Senate, has taken some positive steps to remedy this injustice. Tasmanian state Premier Will Hodgman, in his 2016 Australia Day speech, talked about his government's commitment to 'reset our relationship with the Tasmanian Aboriginal community'. In his speech he acknowledged:

… the Federal Government contributes almost half a billion dollars in funding to Aboriginal Tasmanians, compared to about $8 million from the State Government.

He also acknowledged the serious systemic flaws in the Tasmanian state government process for determining Indigenous status. I again quote from Premier Hodgman's Australia Day speech:

While this policy was written with good intent; to focus programs and services to better assist the Aboriginal community, and establish consistency across agencies, it has not succeeded.

I continue to quote Premier Hodgman:

It hasn't been fixed, and my Government is determined to do so, because the policy failure brings negative outcomes; it's harming Aboriginal people.

Our existing policy is a long way from aligning with the Commonwealth's process meaning Tasmanians can be recognised as an Aboriginal in a national context, but not in their own home state of Tasmania.

Some Tasmanians are eligible for Federal support, but not for any support or access to cultural activities here in Tasmania.

It is an issue that even statisticians can't agree.

The last census in 2011 found there were 19,625 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Tasmania.

The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics from 2014 reported 25,845 Indigenous people in Tasmania.

Yet, under the current Tasmanian government policy, it's estimated that there are just 6,000 Indigenous Tasmanians.

Something is very wrong here.

As indicated by Premier Hodgman, something was indeed very wrong when it came to the management of Indigenous affairs and billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds in Tasmania. I described the gravity of the situation and different injustices when I wrote to Premier Hodgman earlier this year in February, and stated:

The new facts and disclosures revealed in your Australia Day speech, are proof that a situation was engineered over time by politicians and others - where tens of thousands of Indigenous Tasmanians were deliberately disadvantaged - by having access to hundreds of millions of dollars in health and social services denied to them by the Government of Tasmania.

Your research into this rort will have also revealed that it was not only the physical necessities of life that successive State Governments denied to 2 out of every 3 Indigenous Tasmanian—but Labor/Green and Liberal Governments also wrongly fully and criminally denied to - roughly 20,000 Indigenous Tasmanians - cultural identity and democratic rights - including the right to vote and stand for election to Indigenous councils.

Premier, you will have been made aware - through the state based Tasmanian Electoral Commission - how Indigenous Tasmanians, who were tested and found by Federal Tribunals in 2002 "to be of Aboriginal Race"—were denied by your laws, the ability to enrol on the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania Electors' Roll and vote or stand for elected office.

The Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman really only touched the tip of iceberg when he admitted:

Something is very wrong here.

Unfortunately for the taxpayer, Premier Hodgman is behaving like a policeman who is faced with a body at a crime scene but has lost his will to bring the guilty to justice. Serious questions have been raised about the management, mismanagement or maladministration of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. To date, not one politician, apart from myself, has supported an audit and a thorough forensic investigation of Tasmania's Indigenous affairs budget for at least the last 10 years.

However, I have not given up hope. I have to acknowledge the interest and hard work that the federal Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Minister Scullion, has given to this matter. After my meeting and briefings with Minister Scullion in this parliament—my meetings with Minister Scullion began soon after my first speech in the last parliament—he applied pressure to the Tasmanian Premier which led to the tightening up of the Indigenous financing system. He is aware of my request for a rigorous investigation and audit of the accounts of Tasmania's Indigenous affairs budget for at least the last 10 years. Minister Scullion has my respect and I am confident he is prepared to properly account for a decade of Commonwealth funding to Tasmania's Indigenous people.

I prefer not to talk about the plebiscite for gay marriage. I think there are more urgent and important issues that deserve to be talked about. For example, involuntary treatment of drug addicted children, serious lack of jobs, out of control living costs, cuts to aged care, over stretched public health systems—the list goes on and on and on.

However, after listening to many elected representatives argue against the plebiscite by saying that the debate would cause young people to take their own lives and open the floodgates of hate, I am forced to remind those people of a famous quote by Pericles of Athens which was made about 400 years before Christ was born. The quote is written on a wall not far from this chamber, and says:

We Athenians make decisions for ourselves, or at least participate in the full discussion of them: for we do not regard debate as a barrier to effective action, but a necessary condition for acting wisely.

My advice to those politicians who are trying to emotionally blackmail the Australian public—in a very juvenile and dangerous manner—into not having a national debate and a plebiscite on gay marriage is this: the question of gay marriage must be put before the people of Australia, and no barrier must be placed in the way of this debate between the Australian people.

Australia is a mature democracy which should not shy away from this debate. After the people have their say, no matter what the result, there will be people who, for very good and legitimate reasons, will have very hurt feelings. If a plebiscite of the people is used to test Australia's conscience on this matter then whoever is on the losing side of the debate will be in no doubt about the will of the Australian people. Therefore, they will be able to heal, unite and move on a lot more quickly.

Australia is facing a situation it has never seen before, because of a combination of substance and illicit drug abuse, gambling addictions and an unemployment crisis. Many of our families are experiencing third-generation welfare dependency. Many children are being neglected. Some are forced to go to school hungry as family budgets are being fed into pokies and drug dealers' pockets. Tasmania is at the heart of this issue, as well as other parts of the country. And this crisis does not discriminate—it can affect you if you are any race, colour or creed. Many governments have simply swept this problem under the rug, and it is now time to acknowledge the efforts of this government and Minister Alan Tudge, who have established trials of the Twiggy Forrest inspired healthy welfare cashless card.

Earlier this month, the ABC reported that Ceduna has seen a drastic drop in the amount of welfare money being spent on gambling and alcohol. Ceduna Mayor Allan Suter said:

It was quite common to see intoxicated people in the street pretty much every day of the week, and we also saw large numbers of intoxicated people being admitted to the sobering-up centre. Now, both those things have certainly improved quote significantly.

A cashless welfare card quarantines 80 per cent of welfare payments from gambling or alcohol. The final 20 per cent of the welfare payment is paid in cash. The early results of the trial in Ceduna, South Australia have been encouraging. Drug dealers have been run out of town, and there has been a great deal less money being spent on alcohol and gambling. The kids are being looked after and families now have food back on the tables to feed their kids.

In conjunction with some very important supporting initiatives, once the trial is over and is proven to be a complete success, I have made it very clear to the people of Tasmania that I would like to see it being rolled out right across Tasmania. Let me make this clear again: I support a state-wide trial of the cashless Healthy Welfare Card with a number of supporting initiatives, including this very important point if they are to roll it out in Tasmania: that Tasmania be declared a payroll tax free state at the same time. This will cause a dramatic growth in business and job opportunities at the same time as the rollout of the cashless welfare card so people will have a better chance of getting off welfare and earning a wage.

Tasmania collects about $400 million of payroll tax, which is really a tax on jobs, while spending about $410 million on its jobs package. While I would like the federal government to help compensate the state for a loss of payroll tax revenue, the state government could stop its jobs package and declare Tasmania payroll-tax-free. Tasmania would receive positive massive national and international publicity and interest within the business community if it came became a payroll-tax-free zone. Tasmania would get greater jobs and business growth payroll tax free than under the current system, which typically taxes established, successful businesses greater amounts the more workers they hire.

Before I close, I think it is important to make a point in the debate surrounding donations linked to the Chinese Communist government to Australian political parties. Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi lecturing this parliament and displaying mock outrage regarding Labor Senator Sam Dastyari and Chinese political donations is like an angry prostitute lecturing us about the benefits of celibacy. Before I receive unfair criticism from sex workers, I apologise to them profusely for comparing them to Senator Bernardi—I know that is a really terrible low-down thing to do. I can tell you, prostitutes are far more honest, sincere, humane, compassionate and give you a better bang for your buck than Senator Bernardi will ever be able to deliver.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, resume your seat. Senator Seselja, on a point of order.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie has reflected on Senator Bernardi in a particularly aggressive way. It is against the standing orders, and I would ask you to direct her to withdraw those imputations.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, I think in the ordinary course of the chamber's deliberations, it is best to reflect as kindly as possible on members of other side of the chamber. If you feel you can rephrase, please do so.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to political donations linked to the Communist government in China, Senator Bernardi and his Liberal colleagues are rank hypocrites. The Liberal Party and former Liberal colleagues are under the spell of the political donations linked to the Chinese government.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, resume your seat. Senator Seselja, on a point of order.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two points of order. One is the further imputation in Senator Lambie's language in relation to the word 'hypocrite'. There was clearly an imputation earlier, a very aggressive imputation, against Senator Bernardi. It would be reasonable for Senator Lambie to withdraw. It is unparliamentary so she should withdraw and in addition she should withdraw the further imputation.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins, on a point of order.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Lambie was actually attempting to follow your instruction, Mr Acting Deputy President, which was that she rephrase her earlier remarks. In doing so, she made some further comments which Senator Seselja believes are inappropriate. But if I recall correctly, she referred to those on the other side in a collective sense as being 'rank hypocrites' and I do not think that is out of order.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, I would ask you to consider the orderly business of the chamber. I do take note of Senator Collins's point of order. You did use 'hypocrites'—plural—but please tread carefully.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have considered that, Mr Acting Deputy President. The Liberal Party and former Liberal colleagues are under the spell of the political donations linked to the Chinese government just as they are under the spell of political donations from the banks. If Senator Bernardi is sincere then he would immediately disclose the amount of money linked to the Chinese government that has been given to the Liberal Party over the last 20 years. I say bring it on. And he can continue doing so in real time and stop the Liberal's cover-up of political donations.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to contribute my address-in-reply. It is a shame that the government has started the new 45th Parliament with a smear campaign against in particular Senator Dastyari but more pointedly the Labor Party. There is a reason that the government has started this way—that is, the government continues to have in this brand-new parliament an even bigger problem with its backbench. I recalled on many occasions in the 44th Parliament, drawing it to the attention of the Senate and indeed the public, that it was the backbench controlling the government ministers, as we saw backdown after backdown driven not by policy, driven not by ministers responsible for particular outcomes but by backbenchers who continue to be disillusioned with the way that the Liberal Party, indeed the government, was heading. So that is why we see this absolutely shocking, over-the-top smear campaign. It is about the government trying to hide its many faults.

I think Senator Lambie today remarked that, three days in, the government really had not changed. The government had continued to try to rush things along to not give an opportunity to the much bigger crossbench—which it voted on, with its electoral reform, in partnership with the blue Greens to have changes in the way the Senate voting reform came. Well, we have a much bigger crossbench now, and the government is continuing to ignore them. From what Senator Lambie shared with us this morning, the government is not really giving new crossbenchers the opportunity to get across a considerable agenda.

Why is it that the government has this smear campaign? We have seen two awful things which attack ordinary Australians. One is this ridiculous continuation with a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. I see now that some in the Australian community think that somehow having a plebiscite decides the matter. Of course, it does not. We are a representative democracy, and it is our job as MPs and senators to make decisions. Only the Australian parliament can choose to change or not change the Marriage Act. Only the Australian parliament can do that. Whether we have a plebiscite or not makes no difference to that outcome. Quite frankly, it is absolutely time that we did our jobs and did not waste at least $160 million on a plebiscite which is completely unnecessary and which will just hurt people.

We heard that in Ireland, with the experience they had, they were required to have a plebiscite in order to get to marriage equality. We are not required to do that. We heard how they were very mindful not to hurt people. But we are talking about choices that individuals make—individuals who have a particular way of life; individuals who are not heterosexual. So we are going to have a majority of Australians cast judgement on a minority group. That, in and of itself, will create division; it will create hurt. Indeed, I think groups who support people who are coming out are saying it will lead to suicides. This is a very complex issue not to be decided through the hate and the kind of lecturing we will see if we go down the plebiscite route. So that is my first point about this deliberate smear campaign to hide the ills of the government.

The second issue is: 18C has raised its head again. When you attack someone on the basis of their religion, the colour of their skin or the way they look, that is hurtful. We do need to protect people in this country. All of us, I am sure, as children have been taunted by others. Now, as an adult, I vividly remember the sorts of taunts I copped as a young child. I cannot imagine how much worse that becomes if the colour of your skin is different to mine or if you choose to follow a religion which is not part of the mainstream religion. 18C is there for a reason. Again, we are whipping up hatred in this country against minority groups. On day three of this parliament, that is very clearly the agenda of the backbench—to keep 18C rocking and rolling along to create that division, and the issue of the plebiscite, which is completely unnecessary and is a massive expenditure of public moneys.

Last week, at the National Press Club, we heard Mr Morrison going on about a trillion dollars worth of debt and telling those on low incomes and on pensions that they have to somehow tighten their belts, and that if they do not tighten their belts then the government will tighten them for them by looking at the sorts of benefits they get. I think they were referred to, in the new terminology, as the 'not taxed'. So against this backdrop of attacking pensioners and low-income Australians and of, really, attacking all sorts of supports in our community, the government wants to waste at least $160 million—I am sure it will cost more than that—on a plebiscite that does not do a single thing to change the Marriage Act. I was on the public record way before I came into this place that I have always supported marriage equality. I just do not understand why we cannot get there. I know now people who do not even support marriage equality but just want it done and dusted. It is inevitable. We are embarrassing ourselves as a country to remain where we are. So that is the division we are seeing. It is very public and on display.

Then, of course, there is the whole superannuation debacle that is going on among those opposite. We are hearing the government ministers, the government frontbenchers, try to assure us that they will go ahead and make changes to super that, quite frankly, benefit the most wealthy in our country. But, again, those backbenchers are agitating that those kinds of cuts to the wealthiest in the country are somehow unfair. We know from the last parliament, the 44th Parliament, who is running the Turnbull government. It is not the frontbench and it is not the ministers; it is the backbench. And there are more of them now who are united against their own leadership. So that is why we have a smear campaign.

We have a smear campaign because Labor has a very clear agenda that we are proud to be talking about. That agenda benefits ordinary Australians. It looks after people. It does not seek to make their lives harder. We want to put in place policies that advance Australia and that put people first. Look at the great fuss we have had—I do not know where the government gets its opinion polls from, but does it seriously think that ordinary Australians do not support a banking royal commission?

It was pointed out to us today that we have in the building some of the victims who have lost their homes, their livelihoods, their wellbeing, their lives, through the behaviour of banks. What reasonable government would want to continue to stick up for the banks against ordinary Australians who have well and truly been ripped off? Nobody understands that. When I talk to ordinary Australians about a banking royal commission—of course we still need to have other reforms, and banks need to be held to account—they think we have to get to the truth of this and banks have to be held accountable.

What did we see our Prime Minister do? He rushed ahead to protect the banks at all costs. He is well and truly out of step with ordinary Australians who absolutely want a royal commission. We saw that this morning: more protectionism going on ahead as we absolutely have to protect the banks who, quite clearly, are well able to protect themselves. We have seen the banks snub governments—Labor and Liberal—year in, year out, because they are the big money, they are the big end of town. They wield a lot of power and, unfortunately, our Prime Minister is dancing to their tune. Instead of representing millions of Australians who want a royal commission, Mr Turnbull has gone back to his roots, his comfort zone and, unfortunately, he continues to protect the banks.

Marriage equality: let's just get it done. Let's just have a vote in this place, get it done and end the misery. Love is love. If you want to marry someone, let's make that possible. If you do not want to marry someone, what harm is done?

We have also seen the attacks on Medicare. The government tried to turn that into some kind of scare campaign. Medicare is a bedrock of our system. Our healthcare system, Medicare, which Labor introduced, has had every single coalition try to attack it since its introduction. That is what has happened here. Again, throughout the election campaign, Australians were absolutely on the money in relation to what the federal government was doing to Medicare.

Make no mistake: the Turnbull government will not hoodwink ordinary Australians on the issue of Medicare, because generations now have grown up with Medicare as the founding block of our health system—a universal health system we should all be proud of, unlike the US, where poor people, and even middle-income earners, are missing out. Women cannot have breast cancer treatment, because their insurance is not good enough. That is criminal, and I certainly do not want to—and millions of other Australians agree with me—go down that road in Australia.

Education: come on! We are failing in this area. We are going backwards and we were—remember in the 44th Parliament—told we had a unity ticket on Gonski, and that has just gone. These continue to be Labor's policies. We are very clear on that and not only that: we are absolutely united. We want to talk about policies and, unfortunately, what we have seen over the last couple of days is a smear campaign by the Turnbull government.

Let's just put that into a broader perspective, because there have actually been a lot of donations to the Liberal Party from Chinese organisations and indeed most recently—and this has been in the media—Minshen Zhu from Top Education Institute has indeed met with Senator Brandis. There are plenty of photos in the media of that occurring. The same gentleman has met with our Prime Minister. We are not tarring them with the same brush.

Australia cannot operate as a progressive country that wants to raise our standard of living and increase our trade opportunities without talking to other countries, without engaging with private sector companies, without visits—all of the things that make us a robust country and a good trading partner. However, let's just make this debate a little bit larger than $1,600. Let's be very clear about that: we have got proof and photos—as I said, it has been in the media—of Senator Brandis, who led the attack today, meeting with Minshen Zhu of Top Education and indeed our Prime Minister.

Yesterday, just after Senator Dastyari came in here and made his statement, we had Senator Bernardi leading the attack. He seems to be in the Liberal Party but he has got a fundraising organisation that is called Australian Conservatives. Guess what? Guess who they encourage donations from? China, and it is on their website for all to see. If we are going to start pointing the finger, let's just broaden this. We are not making a fuss about this, but it is what it is. But Senator Bernardi did not tell us: 'Oops! And, by the way, I too with my Australian Conservatives fund encouraged donations from China.' It is there on the website—go and have a look. It is headed up:' Donate to Australian Conservatives' just as those photos of Senator Brandis and Mr Turnbull are out there for the public to see, meeting with the officials from Top Education.

Let's just look a bit further—I am looking at one particular donation to the Liberal Party in its financial disclosures from 2013-14. Guess who it's from, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher? None other than Top Education. In the same way that it was on Senator Dastyari's declaration, here it is declared—we are not making any comment about that, but come on. Here we have a donation to the Liberal Party of Australia, its New South Wales division, of $22,000 from the Top Education group. Again, there in black and white, because the Liberal Party has accepted donations from overseas.

Actually, between 2013 and 2015, Top Education donated a total of around $65,000 to the Liberal Party. Did we hear that from Senator Bernardi yesterday? No, we did not. We did not hear from Senator Bernardi that his Australian Conservatives solicit donations from China. We did not hear it from Senator Brandis in his unprecedented attack today that the Liberal Party had received donations from Top Education.

Let's look at what Labor has tried to do on banning overseas donations? We have tried a couple of times when we were in government to ban these donations, and guess what?

The coalition, including its members in Senator Bernardi and Senator Brandis, voted it down. When Labor, on two occasions, put up legislation to ban overseas donations, the government was not having it. Why? Because they value donations such as $65,000 from Top Education and from a range of other overseas donors. I ask again: what is going on here with this smear campaign? It is because the Turnbull government has no agenda. It has an agitated back bench. In the 44th Parliament, we saw how that backbench was really the decision-making arm of the Turnbull government, and we are seeing it again in day 3 of this parliament. Once again that backbench is well and truly in control.

We have had the coalition voting against reforms to electoral laws banning overseas donations on at least two occasions; for the record, that was in 2009 and again in 2010. I would posture that that is because individual government senators, individual Liberal Party members and perhaps even National Party members, want to continue to receive donations from China and want to continue to receive donations from Top Education. Why else would you vote against legislation to ban overseas donations that Labor put in place? Doesn't that fix the problem? But it is very convenient for them to try and continue with their smear campaign, because they have nothing else on their agenda—nothing else at all.

We have seen all sorts of overseas donations to individual politicians and, indeed, Prime Minister Turnbull has accepted donations from the US-based Fortress company—the same company that foreclosed on Hurricane Katrina victims. Indeed, in 2006, 10 months after a Mr Edwards joined Fortress, it bought Centex Home Equity company of Dallas—one of the country's subprime lenders—renaming it Nationstar. We know that Fortress, if we track their movements, began its moves into subprime lending before Mr Edwards joined, but it continued, buying Conseca Finance Servicing Corp out of bankruptcy in 2003 and renaming it Green Tree. The links are all there.

We see that donations are still flowing from overseas into the Liberal Party's coffers, and Labor made it very clear where we stood on that. We have made it clear on at least two occasions. We have certainly made it clear in this place when we put in place legislation that would have stopped that. And as it was absolutely knocked on the head by none other than the Liberal-National Party coalition, we know very clearly where they stand on the issue of overseas donations—whether it is from China or whether it is from Top Education. They want that money to continue to flow; otherwise they would have accepted Labor's legislation.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens and commentators like Ross Gittins dismiss concerns about rising government debt by saying that government is borrowing to invest in real assets that will provide benefits for decades to come. It is amazing that they can say this with a straight face, as the last time Australian governments borrowed simply to invest was in 2008. In every year since, the governments of Australia have borrowed big and have used most of this borrowing to supplement spending rather than to invest. Look at last year: governments across Australia borrowed $60 billion but only used $27 billion of this to invest, while $33 billion of the $60 billion was used to spend. That is more than $1,000 of borrowing to spend for every Australian, and there is no asset to show for it.

It seems that, no matter how large the tax-take is, our governments feel the need to spend more than the tax-take. It seems the desire to spend on the wages of bureaucrats and on handouts to individuals and businesses knows no bounds. The figures I quote are for the entire public sector across the nation, but there is no shifting the blame to the states—when it comes to borrowing to spend, the Commonwealth government is the main culprit. Supporting this reckless borrowing is the height of irresponsibility. But, still, the Greens and apologists for them, like Ross Gittins, pretend that their position is the caring one. For the sake of our children, voters must remove all Greens from our parliaments before it is too late.

This week, I introduced a bill to remove requirements to pay weekend penalty rates in hospitality businesses. This would help cafes and shops that currently struggle to stay open on weekends. This is good for workers. It would also lead cafes and shops to open more on weekends and to hire more staff. This is similarly good for workers. The idea that this change would hurt workers is fanciful. The idea relies on the fantasy that huge numbers of workers currently get as many hours of weekend work as they want in cashed-up cafes and shops, but that these cashed-up cafes and shops would slash wages the split second they were allowed to.

In reality, this change would mostly hurt unions, whose business model revolves around charging workers for their expertise in lobbying for complicated workplace regulations. Removing the requirement to pay penalty rates in hospitality will help the proprietors of our cafes and shops. These small business owners receive next to no public sympathy but work extremely long hours at low rates of pay. I am unapologetic that removing the penalty rate requirement would sometimes serve to boost the pay and conditions of these people, because that is exactly what they deserve.

Finally, removing the requirement to pay penalty rates in hospitality will help our community. Lively shopping, cafe and entertainment districts draw us out of our homes and promote weekend catch-ups and activities with families and friends. Defenders of penalty rate requirements are doing the work of the fun police. They hate small business, they are the enemy of our young workers and they are in the pocket of the unions. The time to break their callous hold on our weekends is now.

This week I reintroduced a bill to allow the territories to legalise assisted suicide, which is sometimes referred to as voluntary euthanasia. The bill is further evidence that you do not have to be a leftie to support increased freedom on social matters. The Liberal Democrats support older Australians by supporting the legalisation of assisted suicide—just like the Left. But, unlike the Left, the Liberal Democrats also support older Australians by opposing tax increases on superannuation savings, and we support tax cuts on other retirement savings. Government should not tell older Australians how they can and cannot die, and government should not tell older Australians that they need to give up more of their hard-earned money so that it can be wasted.

The Liberal Democrats support the right of people to smoke marijuana—just like the Left. But, unlike the Left, the Liberal Democrats support the right of people to smoke tobacco, too. The Liberal Democrats support the right of same-sex couples to marry—just like the Left. But, unlike the Left, the Liberal Democrats support the right of opponents of same-sex marriage to have nothing to do with such marriages—whether they are marriage celebrants, photographers or florists. The Liberal Democrats oppose the rise of the police state—just like the Left. But, unlike the Left, the Liberal Democrats also oppose the rise of the nanny state. The police state and the nanny state are one and the same. They both reflect the view that we should rely on government to keep us safe at all costs.

We Liberal Democrats are the consistent ones. Supporters of assisted suicide, drug law reform, same-sex marriage and civil liberties have a choice. They no longer need to swallow high taxes and excessive government just to get a little social progress.

Debate adjourned.