Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That—

(a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; and

(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.

Non-controversial government business—

No. 2    Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016

Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Bill 2016

No. 3 Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016

No. 4   Customs Tariff Amendment (2017 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2016

Customs Amendment (2017 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2016

I also move:

That the question be now put.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the following amendment to the motion moved by Senator Fifield:

(1) Omit paragraph (b), substitute:

"(b) government business order of the day No. 7 relating to the Income Tax Rates (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 and related bills be called on after the consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.

The reason we have taken this step to move this amendment is that the government has been talking for some time now about the need to end the uncertainty for farmers and our tourism sector. And they are certainly right about the uncertainty. It has been going on for almost 18 months. It has been causing great harm and anguish to this country's farmers, the growers and tourism operators—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right, please! Order! Senator Gallagher has the right to be heard in silence.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After almost 18 months, and through this amendment, we say to the government: let's end the uncertainty today. It has gone on for too long. I know there is a lot of support on the government benches for an approach like this. Let's not forget that two weeks ago this legislation was so urgent that the government gagged debate on it in the House of Representatives. It is quite a significant move to gag debate, but the government obviously believed that this bill was so pressing and so crucial to deal with that we could not even have the full debate in the other place.

It is worth noting what some government members in the other place said about this bill when they were dealing with the legislation. Mr Broad, the member for Mallee, asked the shadow minister for agriculture:

… if you could, please ask your senators not to hold this up any longer than it needs to be because it is important that not only is it done and dusted by Christmas but that it is well communicated so that those backpackers continue to come.

We agree with those comments, which is why we are urging that these bills be brought on in the Senate today. Mr Christensen, the member for Dawson, said:

… there is no justification for any further delay.

Ms Marino, the member for Forrest, demanded that we:

… step up to the plate and get this through the parliament and into practice. Our regional economies are relying on it.

Mr Wilson, the member for O'Connor, said:

Deferring this legislation simply creates more uncertainty for both potential working holiday makers and our regional economies.

Mr Drum, the member for Murray, said:

What we need to do is put the message out there very clearly to the Senate that this is time critical—

I repeat: the member for Murray said that 'the Senate needs to get the message that this is time critical'—

and there are going to be an awful lot of mum-and-dad—

Government senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

May I remind senators once again that senators have the right to be heard in silence. Further, I remind senators it is particularly disorderly to be calling out when they are not in their correct seats.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. Mr Drum said:

… there are going to be an awful lot of mum-and-dad Australian businesses that are going to be impacted if these games continue any longer than another week.

Well, we are now at the end of that next week, and we say that these games need to end today. We agree with all of the members of the government in the other place that we need to provide certainty for our farmers and our tourism sector. The government has spent almost 18 months causing uncertainty. We can end this now. Let's debate this legislation today and support my amendment. Let's get it done so our farmers, our growers and our tourism operators can move on.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the evidence for the fact that this is a stunt is being demonstrated by the fact that the motion, or the proposed amendment, that Senator Gallagher circulated is being circulated, essentially, as I was getting to my feet to move the order of business. This is a standard motion that is moved every Thursday to bring on non-controversial legislation so the Senate can transact those bills where there is no dispute. Also, part of this motion is to provide for government business to be brought on after the conclusion of the non-controversial legislation.

The convention in this place is that the government of the day determines what government business is. The government of the day determines the order in which government business is called. There is a lot of government business that is before the Senate, and it is the responsibility of the government to order that legislation in an orderly way—in a way that can see important legislation transacted—and that is what we have done through the course of this week. This has actually been, up to this point, a good week in the Senate. We have dealt with the appropriation bills, we managed to have the plebiscite bill come to a vote in good time and we also managed to legislate a 25 per cent reduction in licence fees for radio and TV. So this has been a productive week for the Senate, and the Senate works best when the government of the day is allowed to order the business in government business time, hence the name 'government business time'.

That is what I was seeking to do by moving the motion that I have. It is a routine motion. What Labor is seeking to do is not to demonstrate any genuine interest in the matter that they are seeking to bring on. They know, I think as all colleagues in this place know, that in relation to the backpacker tax the government said before the election that it would look at the issue. We have looked at the issue and we have put forward a proposition. Obviously, there are discussions that are continuing in this place with a range of colleagues, and that is appropriate. So we will not be part of this stunt and we are of the view that the motion that I have moved should proceed without amendment.

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

I rise to support Labor's amendment to government business which will ensure that the government's legislation relating to backpacker legislation is dealt with as a matter of urgency by this Senate. On behalf of Tasmanian farmers and workers whose full-time jobs depend on that surge of seasonal backpacker workers I thank Labor, the Greens, One Nation and other crossbench senators who are going to support this important amendment, which will force the government's legislation to be brought into the Senate.

I would like this chamber to reflect on the reality of what we are trying to do here. The opposition and the crossbench senators have been forced to move an amendment that makes the government introduce their own legislation. What an embarrassment for this government that they will now try to prevent a debate on their own legislation. It is not just any old government legislation that is not time sensitive. This government legislation is extremely urgent. It is legislation that is highly time sensitive. It is legislation which affects the livelihoods and life savings of hundreds of Tasmanian farmers and thousands of full-time Tasmanian workers.

The Liberal-National government, by delaying the introduction of their own backpacker legislation this week, have shown not only that they have a care factor of zero for rural and regional areas and our tourism industry but also that they have betrayed the people who are supposed to be their loyal supporters. If you look at the National Party office doors in this Senate, you will see signs which say 'Nationals for regional Australia'. What a distortion of the truth. What a nasty, grubby, little porky being peddled by a group of backstabbing, gutless cowards. The leader of this useless herd of has-beens and geldings is our Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, who took ordinary Australians, especially those in Tasmania and other regional areas, for fools when he said that backpackers fruit-picking were taking Australian jobs. What a load of bloody rubbish. He knows that the livelihoods of Australian farmers and their full-time Australian workers depend on the surge in seasonal backpacker workers, and that if we do not have backpacker seasonal workers coming to Australia then millions of tonnes of ripe fruit, berries and vegetables will rot—they will absolutely rot—and farm businesses will go bankrupt and thousands of full-time Australian workers in the farming and food processing industries will have to be sacked.

If the Liberal and National parties really wanted to protect local Australian jobs they would stop blaming backpackers. The overseas visitors who are really taking Australian jobs are the people here on overseas student visas. They and their employers are rorting the system and taking away jobs from our children. They are only supposed to work 20 hours a week and they are often working three times that for employers who are rorting the system and exploiting vulnerable workers. If you want to have more jobs for our kids and for their future stop those on student visas from working here in Australia—full stop.

I want this government backpacker debate brought before this house as soon as possible, because the government's promise of lowering the tax rate to 19 per cent is not working. It has completely failed. Tasmanian farmers have told us that the government's proposed 19 per cent backpacker tax rate is not internationally competitive. Backpackers are avoiding Australia in droves because of this government's insistence on 19 per cent. Everyone agrees that a 10.5 per cent backpacker tax will make us internationally competitive again—not for this season, though. Those people over there have finished it for this season. This season is finished; it is absolutely over. They did no modelling. They have not estimated what it is going to cost this summer for our industry. You have not done any modelling—too bloody lazy—and for that our farmers are going down.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam President, I raise a very serious point of order. We can all say 'bloody this' or 'bloody that' in this chamber, and that is perhaps how we talk outside the chamber. But I seek your ruling on whether this senator's continual reference or use of the adjective 'bloody' is appropriate for this chamber. If the ruling is that it is appropriate for this senator then I am sure we can all indulge ourselves in that as well. But I do think the Senate has some standards that should be observed by all senators, and I ask your ruling on that.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, I do remind you to conduct yourself with decorum. Whilst this is an emotional debate and we appreciate the emotion in the room, we just need to be more nuanced with our language. Thank you, Senator Lambie.

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

I think after yesterday's win in the US, the way the political establishment operates is over. Everyone agrees that a 10.5 per cent backpacker tax will make us internationally competitive again. And it will help fix the damage caused by an incompetent, gutless, deceitful Liberal-National government in the future, who have single-handedly almost stuffed our fruit picking and horticultural industry—for this summer, certainly.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I and my colleagues Senators Griff and Kakoschke-Moore will not be supporting this motion for a number of reasons. The leader of government business says that this is a stunt—and I know a thing or two about stunts! There are good stunts and there are counterproductive stunts. I think this motion is counterproductive for a number of reasons. We cannot support this motion because currently we are openly in good-faith negotiations with the government on a parallel amendment in respect of the backpacker tax. That relates to an opportunity for unemployed Australians, Australians who are on welfare, to have an opportunity to do this seasonal work without being penalised. Under the current system, if you earn more than $104 a fortnight you lose 50c in the dollar thereafter and it tapers off—if it is more than $1,000 a fortnight you get nothing. This system is built with massive disincentives for those on welfare to have a go and do this seasonal work.

The government, to their credit, have been open to this idea. I met with Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce not so long ago, and Treasurer Morrison and Minister Porter have been open to this suggestion. There is no question that the 32 per cent backpacker tax was an ill-conceived policy notion and is counterproductive. We are facing a crisis, this season, that we need to resolve sooner rather than later. Senator Lambie is right. There will be many thousands of tonnes of produce left rotting on the ground in the Riverland of South Australia, in the Adelaide Hills, where my colleague Rebekha Sharkie, the member for Mayo, has been championing this proposal in relation to raising the threshold to 19 per cent. Some would say that is too high. But our wage rates are higher than New Zealand's and those of other countries. That is a countervailing factor, and I accept that.

We cannot support this motion because we are negotiating in good faith with the government. I urge my crossbench colleagues to see that there is a way through this. Forcing a vote on this today is counterproductive. There is scope to get the best of both worlds—to use the backpackers that we need to pick the fruit but to also, for the first time ever, unleash the potential of many thousands of young and older Australians who right now, with the huge disincentives built into our welfare system, are penalised for having a go. We want to remove that disincentive.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government claims that this bill is of utmost importance. However, despite the report being tabled yesterday, the government has not brought this bill on for debate. Senator Xenophon, we could have been debating it today but the government has chosen not to. So despite this bill being 'urgent'—like a number of other bills and the urgent election we have had—the government has failed to fix this issue. But they have to fix it because what a disaster this has been for this government. I agree with Senator Lambie about the impact it has on the season in Tasmania. I was at the Tasmanian inquiry. I will talk about couple of issues there—I am only going to talk quickly about this today. We know that farmers and tourism operators around Tasmania, and in the rest of Australia, are hurting because of this situation.

Working holiday-makers, backpackers, help harvest production and we are looking at a situation where, nationwide, that is being put at risk. The government sought to make changes that significantly affect the agriculture sector without even bothering to consult with the sector. Once again, there was no consultation. The way the government has approached this issue is disgraceful. As I said, farmers and tourism operators across Tassie and Australia are absolutely livid at the arrogance, incompetence and ignorance that the Liberal-National government has brought this issue. The farmers and tourism operators face uncertainty and loss and fear for the future of their operations.

I just want to quote evidence given by Mr Tim Reid at the Launceston hearing of the inquiry into this bill. Mr Reid, from Reid Fruits, is one of Tasmania's largest agricultural employers, with a particularly large export market for high quality cherries. Mr Reid told the committee:

We have over 600 people on our own farm during harvest. Again, around 65 per cent of them are backpackers. The locals are really good; they provide a regular return each year to fill key positions in management during harvest et cetera. But without the backpackers we do not have a hope.

… you would have gained by now that this whole exercise has been a shambolic process to introduce a new tax—a simple grab for money, in our opinion, without any thought or consideration and with a complete lack of consultation with people like ourselves.

I cannot believe that they did not go and talk to the agriculture industry. Once again, Senator Lambie, I agree with what you say: the Nationals should hang their heads in shame for how they are treating the people of Australia. It is absolutely abysmal.

In the case of Reid Fruits we have seen a decline by 50 per cent this year—

I am quoting Mr Reid again—

in the number of backpackers who have applied for positions with us. We will scrape through this season; we have enough people to fill our positions so far. But I must say that a lot of those backpackers were already in Australia when this tax was announced, some of them on second-year visas. It is the next wave of applicants that we are worried about.

That is from one of Tasmania's leading exporters. They are not a piddly little farming organisation that might need a few people; they are huge. They do great things for Tasmania, and I think Tasmanian senators on the other side should be thinking very carefully about what this means for Tasmania before they just wander off into the wide blue yonder and put their hands up for their side.

Tasmania has done a wonderful job building up its export industry in recent years, and it would be an absolute disaster to see them continually impacted by this government's incompetence. It is pretty clear we need to get this issue resolved, but it is also important that we solve this in the right way. The government previously sought to rush this legislation through. They appear to have been of the opinion that any solution was good enough. Well, it is not. If the government do not get this policy right, they could destroy farms and farmers, destroy our export markets, and destroy towns and families across Tasmania and Australia. We can and must do better. As I said, the government have stumbled into this issue without taking any due care. We know they did no modelling. We heard at the inquiries how they did not consult with anybody.

At the Launceston inquiry, I spoke to Mr Glynn Williams, president of Primary Employers Tasmania. I asked him, 'Were you consulted prior to the 2015-16 budget announcement?' Mr Williams replied, 'No'. Ms McKinnon, from the National Farmers Federation, told the hearing in Canberra:

… I think we would have preferred to have been consulted before the 2015 budget announcement. Clearly, when announcements are made without consultation, there will be people who find parts of the announcements surprising, and that can lead to some consternation. So we would have preferred to have been consulted then.

This government has a history of not consulting people.

And what I do not understand is: if it is such an important issue—of the utmost importance—why don't they want to bring on the debate? We know they have acted arrogantly, we know they have not listened to the industries affected, we know they have acted recklessly without any modelling or considering any of the impacts—especially in regional and rural areas, which of course is where most of this work takes place—and we know they have acted thoughtlessly without considering the impacts on Australian farmers, tourism operators and small communities. Let us not forget those backpackers spend most of their money in the communities they are actually working in, and so those other small businesses in those small communities will also suffer.

Those opposite need to have the courage to face this chamber and absolutely fix the destruction that they have wrought. I would ask that Senator Xenophon reconsider his position about not supporting this. You are right, Senator Xenophon; it is important. We know it is important and we need to resolve it. I believe that bringing the debate on today is one way to help resolve this issue more quickly.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First, I would like to raise a process issue. The Greens were not consulted about this today. We had no idea this was coming on. Obviously, we have been out there campaigning on this issue—before every other political party was, by the way. Nevertheless, we do agree that it is important to get some certainty for agricultural producers. We do agree that a potential deal is on the table here for agricultural producers and for backpackers, and we believe it will be accepted by the agricultural community. Senator Lambie has raised publicly a 10½ per cent tax rate that would allow us to be competitive with New Zealand. We would also like to see the superannuation clawbacks removed. However, if they were not that would still get local agricultural producers to around an effective rate of 19 per cent.

Our view has been very simple from the start. The very first thing I did during the double-dissolution election was to go out to the Tamar Valley to call a press conference and stand with agricultural producers—fruitgrowers, in this case. I said to them, 'You need to stand up on this issue now, during the election. This is when you're going to have the most leverage to actually get an outcome on this issue.' Their point is simply, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Their situation is that they have a competitive advantage over other countries to attract a pool of labour that is desperately needed.

Senator Xenophon, I do not agree with you on this issue. It is important to try to get those social security recipients into meaningful work if that is what they choose to do. However, let me tell you: you obviously have not been out to talk to agricultural producers. Nearly all of them have a policy to employ locally first, but they simply cannot get the pool of labour they need—the seasonal labour they need—at the right times. It is absolutely essential that that pool is filled by backpackers when they are here in this country. With my small vineyard in Tasmania I have used backpacker labour. I know how essential it is. Whilst the policy you are proposing may take some time to implement, if it works it is a positive. But it will not solve the situation now, I guarantee it. You are out of touch with what agricultural producers want. They want some certainty on this.

The easiest way to solve this problem would be for the Senate and the lower house to amend the Income Tax Act 1982 and make it certain that backpackers, while they are here in Australia, are residents for tax purposes. That means they pay the same tax as Australians. That means they pay no tax on their first $18,200. This is the most important point in this debate. At the moment a backpacker can elect whether they are a resident for tax purposes. The test for that residency is available for every backpacker to have a look at. The government, including Senator Duniam, is going around and saying that all backpackers will pay 32 per cent tax if this legislation does not pass. That is false. The ATO are on record saying at the Senate inquiry that that is false. Many backpackers—unfortunately, we do not know how many because no-one has ever looked at this—are residents for tax purposes when they are in Australia. I gave an example at the Senate inquiry of two Patagonian workers who rent the cottage on my family farm. They base themselves in Tasmania for six months and they work at the Hillwood Berry Farm. They are passionate rock climbers and they spend the whole year in Tasmania climbing mountains, but they work out of a single place. To all intents and purposes, they are residents and they pay no tax. They are just one example. The government is going out there and scaring people. The government has gone from telling bulldust one day to playing the xenophobia card the next day. They went straight to fearmongering. That is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

This tax is a stupid idea. It is not trying to fix a broken system; it is simply penny-pinching revenue raising when there is so much more we could do in this country to raise revenue. This is not wanted at 19 per cent or at 32 per cent by the agricultural sector. We can find the money elsewhere. I urge the Senate to reject the government's tax and actually get a result today that will fix the problem. Then we can move on to more important matters, like how we are actually going to raise some serious revenue to pay for the services we need in this country and help balance the budget.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The motion we are looking at is the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher. Is the amendment agreed to?

Is the motion moved by Senator Fifield, as amended, agreed to?

Question agreed to.