Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions asked by opposition senators today.

I have never heard such a hapless defence of the rorting of public funds by any government as the pathetic defence put up by Senator Birmingham today. He is a minister who went to the North East Vocational College with Senator Day in May 2015. He met with Senator Day in June 2015 and received a presentation from Senator Day on his so-called alternative apprenticeship models. He then set up an advisory group and used that advisory group through the next minister, Minister Hartsuyker, to provide $1.84 million and GST on top of that—over $2 million of public funds—to Senator Day's pet project, the North East Vocational College.

Why was that done? That was done because former Senator Day provided many services to the coalition. It was a payment for services rendered to the coalition. It was a payment because Senator Day, at that time, was a reliable and consistent vote for the government. That is why a request for $1.4 million from Senator Day resulted in this minister and his government providing over $2 million to Senator Day's pet project—that is, to take employment rights and a contract of training away from apprentices in South Australia, because that is what the result of this is. It is not an alternative apprenticeship. These young people who will be undertaking this so-called training in the North East Vocational College under the guise of an alternative apprenticeship will never be classified as a tradesperson. It does not meet the law of the land. It does not meet what is required to be a tradesperson. What Senator Day was seeking to do was to have these young people engaged as students, so they would be paid no money from an employer. They would be forced to rely on VET FEE-HELP and student loans. This was the magical so-called program that was going to deliver benefits to the apprenticeship system. It was not even about a proper apprenticeship. This was simply a rort. This was a project put in place to award former Senator Day for his loyalty to the coalition government. That is what this was about. It was a reward for loyalty.

For Senator Birmingham to sit there and tell us that he may have met Senator Day is an absolute contempt of this place. All you have to do is go to the departmental advice to Mr Hartsuyker, the then minister, where it says, 'Senator Day presented his proposal to the former Assistant Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, on 1 June 2015 and subsequently presented to the Apprenticeships Reform Advisory Group on 14 September.' There were no ifs or buts. The minister should have been honest. The minister should have been up-front and accepted that he did meet Senator Day, but what he did—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator is reflecting on the minister. The senator said the minister should have been honest. There is a plain assertion the minister is being dishonest. That is unparliamentary. It must be withdrawn.

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

I did not hear the comment, but I would ask Senator Cameron, if he made the comment, to perhaps think about rephrasing.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it assists the Senate I will do that. Senator Day was getting special benefits from the coalition for his fealty to the coalition, for doing everything the coalition wanted him to do. Senator Day and Senator Birmingham were in this up to their necks. This was a misuse of public money. This was an unacceptable operation and this should be clearly looked at further, because this is a complete misuse of public money to make sure a vote was received. (Time expired)

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had a real sense of deja vu when I was sitting here during question time today listening to the questions asked by those opposite, and I had to check the date just to make sure that we had not been transported back three weeks ago when the Senate last sat and those opposite pursued a very similar line of questioning on an unrelated but obviously to them very important matter. That matter was, of course, the Solicitor-General. They asked question after question, day after day, but I note upon return to the Senate this week that they have lost their interest in that matter and they are no longer taking it up.

I hope that in a few weeks time they look back at their questions on this matter in a similar light and they move on, because what they have demonstrated is a total lack of interest in the policy issues that affect the lives of the Australian people. They have demonstrated a total obsession with their ideas—their fantasies—of scandals that need to be pursued at the expense of real policy issues that actually affect the lives of Australian people.

I would have thought that someone such as Senator Cameron, himself a former union official, who now in his new life is a self-appointed spokesperson for working people, would actually be interested in the policy merits of this issue, in apprenticeships and in what this government is trying to do to fix the absolute disaster that was left to it by the former government and the quartering of apprenticeship numbers across the country, but no. All that Senator Cameron appeared to be interested in doing was slurring the education minister, slurring former senator Bob Day and making two very serious accusations, which I think should be dealt with.

The first part of his accusation—or, certainly implied by his comments—was that this government is engaging in a practice of buying the votes of crossbench senators with taxpayers' money. That is a serious accusation, which he has absolutely failed to back up and absolutely failed to demonstrate is true. The second thing which he engaged in was an attempt to suggest that former Senator Day is someone who is able to be bought by taxpayers' money to a training organisation. That is a very unfair and unjust slur.

I have had the pleasure of knowing former Senator Day briefly in this role, as we briefly overlapped in the Senate, and I also knew him in both of our previous lives prior to being senators. All that I can say about former Senator Day is that in all my personal dealings with him I have found him to be an honourable person, an upstanding person, an honest person, a person who tries his best. He has obviously fallen on hard times with his business, and that is a sad thing. That is something that all of us should be sad about—not just for him and his workers and his customers but because of the distinguished contribution he had been making to the Senate prior to that. I think he is a loss to this place. But those opposite are only interested in smear and innuendo without much evidence to back it up.

Why don't we turn to the actual policy issue at hand here—the actual substance of the issue of apprenticeships. The previous government cut $1.2 billion in apprenticeship incentives in government, and that led to the single largest drop in apprenticeships on record. Perhaps it is not a surprise then that they are not so interested in talking about the policy merits but instead are pursuing a strategy of smear and innuendo.

Senator Birmingham established and commissioned the Apprenticeships Reform Advisory Group to consider a range of issues, including incentives, pre-apprenticeships and alternative models. The advisory group made 22 recommendations, including to explore and pilot alternative apprenticeship delivery arrangements. The government addressed this recommendation by providing $9.2 million under the apprenticeships training alternative delivery pilots initiative. The Australian government is funding five projects under the pilots. The pilots are being delivered by Master Builders Australia, the National Electrical and Communications Association, the North East Vocational College, the Australian Industry Group and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The pilots will test the training models, which will provide alternative skills development options for both industry and those undertaking the training. The Turnbull government wants to support industry efforts to explore new arrangements and examine and test potential regulatory or administrative barriers to innovative, industry-led apprenticeship training practices, something we have to do due to the failure of the former government.

I end my remarks by awarding a gold star to Senator Moore, who was able to ask a policy question today in Senate question time, and I encourage those opposite to come back tomorrow with some more substantive matters.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we saw more obfuscation and obstruction in relation to this whole sordid Bob Day affair. From what we have seen over the last two days and in media reports leading up to this week, it is quite clear that the Abbott-Turnbull government has let nothing get in the way of securing Bob Day's support for its antiworker agenda. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is not at this stage front and centre of this discussion, but the performances of Senator Cormann and Senator Birmingham in the Senate have been less than satisfactory. In my contribution to the address-in-reply I compared Senator Brandis and some of his efforts in recent times to Donald Trump and what we are seeing in America. At the moment, Senator Brandis is the ball and chain around Malcolm Turnbull. Senator Brandis can no longer carry that on. At some stage, we are going to see the Prime Minister act in regard to Senator Brandis's role in this matter and also to his role in regard to the Solicitor-General matter.

Senator Birmingham, the Minister for Education and Training, clearly has not given satisfactory answers today to the questions that have been asked about his conduct. We have to ask ourselves why that is. It is absolutely clear and well known that Senator Day was the most reliable vote for the coalition on their agenda. We know that those opposite want to bring in changes to the workplace laws, in relation to the ABCC. We get lectures about how important that is. But we still have not seen the legislation. It has still not come before the chamber. Why is that the case? Why were they working so feverishly to keep Bob Day in this chamber?

Serious questions were asked of Senator Birmingham today as to how the government came to fund a training college that Senator Day was the director of, to the tune of $2 million. They were not adequately answered. Senator Birmingham actually toured the North East Vocational College in May 2015, but in estimates last month completely forgot that Senator Day was there with him. That is despite the fact that Senator Day subsequently met with the minister a month later to push his case further. At estimates it was also revealed that the department knew about Senator Day's involvement in the organisation and had told the minister about that involvement. Yet Senator Birmingham still gave the college over $2 million in taxpayers' funds, while Senator Day's businesses were going down the gurgler. Senator Birmingham failed to answer questions about these issues today. He also failed to answer questions regarding the role of Mr Hartsuyker in this matter. It is outrageous that the government has aided and abetted Senator Day over the last couple of months in relation to this issue.

Senator Cormann was, at that stage, Acting Special Minister of State. His so-called comprehensive statement left a lot to be desired in relation to the spelling out of his role in this matter. Again, today, he failed to answer the questions that were put to him. Senator Cormann revealed yesterday that shortly after he had been sworn into the job, on 29 December last year, Senator Day emailed him about whether the Commonwealth would be paying rent for his office. Senator Cormann was ready and willing to make that happen. He wrote back to the senator agreeing to provide an extra six months of rental back payments for the property. That was until, it seems, the Department of Finance put the brakes on the matter, and a simple search found that the bank account details were linked to Senator Day. That was in March, some three months before an election was due, but the government raised no concerns about Senator Day's ability to stand in the election campaign.

What makes matters worse for this government is that it really should have seen this coming. It should not have been blinded by their need to secure Senator Day's vote for its antiworker agenda. The coalition would have known a lot about 77 Fullarton Road. It is the same building that Senator Bernardi's Conservative Leadership Foundation was based in. Maybe Senator Bernardi smelled a rat that Senator Cormann didn't, because he vacated the premises last year. It is beyond ridiculous that the government has let this go this far. Senator Day was even using the email address 'bobday@77fullarton.com.au' in his direct emails to ministers. It is beyond ridiculous that the government could not see this. (Time expired)

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I first express my disappointment at the quality, the tone and the intent of the questions of those opposite today. I realise that I am new to this place, but—

Senator Gallacher interjecting—

Senator Gallacher's question was one of those, Madam Deputy Speaker. I realise that I am new to this place, but I really had hoped to learn my statecraft not only from those on my own side of the chamber but also from the wisdom and experience of those opposite. I have been sadly disappointed. You can only imagine my disappointment at the questions of those opposite today. There are so many important issues to address in this place—so much going on that matters to the lives of ordinary Australians and that matters—

Senator Gallacher interjecting—

That matters to your constituents: so much that affects their everyday lives. Yet the opposition continues to pursue a line of questioning that has already been comprehensively dealt with by Senator Ryan, Special Minister of State; that has been comprehensively dealt with by Senator Cormann, Minister for Finance; and that has been methodically addressed and transparently presented to this chamber just 24 hours ago. And today the issue of the North East Vocational College and the alternative apprentice pilot was comprehensively dealt with by Senator Birmingham.

There is no doubt that we have been presented with complex legal and constitutional issues by Senator Day and, indeed, there is no definitive body of jurisprudence on section 44(v), so I will give the opposition the benefit of the doubt. Because this is such a complex legal and constitutional issue, it is perhaps no wonder that those opposite continue to ask questions that have already been comprehensively answered by the Special Minister of State and the Minister for Finance.

They were unequivocal in their remarks. The government has taken every step to explore this matter, to seek further facts and then to take the appropriate steps to bring these matters to the appropriate body for consideration. The Special Minister of State appropriately sought and received legal advice—and the advice was comprehensive, but it was not determinative. Indeed, in this case the Special Minister of State cannot determine whether there has been a breach of the Constitution. The ultimate answer will not come from the Special Minister of State, nor will it come from the Minister for Finance, despite the persistent questioning of those opposite.

The ultimate answer in this case will not come from the government. Indeed, the ultimate answer in this case will not come from the Senate. This is a matter for the court to decide. The government moved a motion in the Senate to refer the election of the former Senator Bob Day to the High Court to determine whether there has in fact been a breach of section 44(v) of the Constitution, and that motion passed unanimously. As this matter has now been referred to the High Court it is important that we respect the process, and it would be highly, highly inappropriate for any person to pre-empt their decision in this complex legal and constitutional matter. So it is time to move on. It is time to move on to the important matters of state.

My frustration lies with an opposition that will not talk about those matters. Why is it that the opposition is not talking about the Enterprise Tax Plan? Why is it that they are not talking about why it is important to reduce company tax rates to create jobs and growth opportunities? Why is it that they are not talking about superannuation reform? These are the issues of the day. These are the issues that are in the newspapers, that we talk about at doorstops and that are going on in the other place. Why are they not talking about this here?

Why are they not talking about mental health, an issue that is the scourge of our society? There are no questions about those things here. It is simply political game-playing. Why are they not talking about Northern Australia infrastructure and all the opportunities that present themselves there? Why are they not talking about the working holiday-makers tax plan that we have spent so much effort getting just right to be fair for all Australians, and to assist our regional and rural industries and tourism industries? And why are they not talking about the ABCC and registered organisations bills, which are so important to the progress and productivity of our country? (Time expired)

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

I will attempt to answer a couple of those questions posed by Senator Hume. The simple facts are that, based on eminent advice given to the government, Senator Day's qualification to be a senator has been referred to the High Court based on whether or not he had a pecuniary interest in a facility. Anybody who has been elected to the Senate will know that, when you get elected, you get offered an office. They say: 'There's an office. It's been leased. Move into it.'

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He had a very good offer!

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

I have been in Senator Farrell's old office, eminently fitted out and eminently suited for the work of a senator—but not for Senator Day. Senator Day says, 'No, I'm not going there. I refuse to go there' for whatever reasons he trotted out. This is why we are talking about it now. It is because of the actions of several special ministers of state in conceding to Senator Day's position that he is not moving into an office. There are other senators on this side of the chamber and on that side of the chamber who did not want to move into a particular facility, but, in order to make sure taxpayers' money was effectively used, they did. They waited until the lease expired or till an arrangement was made and then moved.

We are talking about the Hon. Simon Birmingham's position in all this, and I think it is worth putting on the record why it is worth following up another aspect of Senator Day's activity: his pursuit of this grant for this vocational training college. We know from a cursory examination of the media that the $1.84 million handed to the college chaired for a decade by Senator Day equates to $90,000 for each of the 20 construction apprentices involved in a four-year trial of Mr Day's pet project. The equivalent certificate IV in construction and building at TAFE costs just $30,000 per student. There is a huge disconnect there. The other providers of TAFE certificate IV are only charging $30,000 per student, and Mr Day's college was handed the same sum as the two industry bodies, Master Builders Australia and the National Electrical and Communications Association, who promised to train hundreds of apprentices.

So it is not that we are reinventing the wheel here; we are questioning the actions of authorised ministers in the government: special ministers of state Ronaldson, Ryan and Cormann and Senator Birmingham in respect of his role in granting this very generous provision to Senator Day—almost three times the industry standard in cost for a lot fewer students. These are legitimate questions for debate in this place. I totally reject Senator Paterson and Senator Hume's assertion that we are on the wrong track here. This is about probity. This is about taxpayers' money. This is about due diligence and governance. As Shakespeare said, there is something rotten in Denmark. There is something rotten on that side. They have not acted with due diligence, governance and probity in respect of Senator Day's office and they have not acted with due diligence and probity in respect of granting his pet project an extreme amount of money equivalent to that given to the Master Builders and the electricians, who train hundreds of apprentices, at more than twice or even three times the cost. That does not look good on their resume. It has happened on their watch.

Senator Cameron has been very vigorous in saying that they got paid for that, that Senator Day voted for them all the time. I do not know if that is the case, but you are entitled to ask the question. You are entitled to join the dots. He was able to get away with a situation which no senator that I know has been able to get away with: refusing to move into a taxpayer funded office. He has then had a project which has been funded at double the cost of the industry standard for not as many people. You are entitled to ask those ministers on the other side questions about this behaviour. They have all got sworn statements and they have something to explain. It will continue. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.