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

Can I say—and I have said it before, Senator O'Sullivan—being loud does not make you right. And if you want to talk about the budget and what the budget did, could someone come in here and tell me what it did for Tasmania? We all feel like we were left off the map, except for being slugged with a tax hike. So if anyone can come in here and tell me what Tassie got out of it, I would be very happy to hear it. But I have digressed from my speech for today—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

If I could hear myself over the interjections, Mr Acting Deputy President, it would help. But they do not put me off—as you know, I was a childcare worker for many years; I am used to three-year-olds screaming and yelling—so they can continue and I will start with my speech proper.

I want to talk today about a tradition in the Westminster parliaments—one that goes back many decades—and that is that ministers are held to very high standards by the government, the parliament and the community. They are held to high standards because they occupy positions with a great deal of power and responsibility. The penalty for ministers failing to meet those standards is sacking or resignation.

They are the standards that were applied, eventually, when Senator Sinodinos stood aside pending investigations by the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption after it was revealed that he had served concurrently as Treasurer of the New South Wales Liberal Party and chairman of Australian Water Holdings. The same standards were applied when Mr Briggs resigned over allegations of inappropriate behaviour involving a female public servant during an official visit to Hong Kong, and when Mr Brough stood aside pending outcomes of a police investigation into his behaviour in relation to former speaker Peter Slipper and James Ashby, and when it was revealed that Mr Robert had shares in a mining company of a generous Liberal donor, and when the Department of Finance commenced investigations into Ms Ley's use of travel expenses for—

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, just resume your seat. On a point of order, Senator Smith?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Acting Deputy President Ketter: I was just wondering if Senator Bilyk was going to mention her colleague Senator Dastyari.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

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

As I said, when the investigation commenced into Ms Ley's use of her travel expenses for 20-plus visits to the Gold Coast, where she purchased an investment property—

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, Senator Bilyk. Senator Smith, another point of order?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I was wondering if Senator Bilyk was going to mention her former parliamentary colleague Mr Craig Thomson.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, that is not a point of order.

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

Senator Smith, it is appropriate, I agree, for ministers to resign or be sacked when they fail to meet the standards the community expects of them, or stand aside when they are being investigated for improper behaviour. But there appears to be one minister who, no matter how bumbling or inept he is, always seems to escape the axe. Australians observing the performance of this minister are responding with breathless wonderment, thinking to themselves: 'How many chances does he get before he is sacked for incompetence?' I am referring, of course, to—in my opinion, and in the opinion of everyone on this side, at least, and in the opinion of so many people I know out in the public—the worst Attorney-General in Australia's history, Senator Brandis. The Attorney-General is the first law officer of Australia. As such, he is charged with administering the law. But, sadly, Senator Brandis has spent much of his time as Attorney-General undermining the rule of law. He is a minister who has spent much of his time in office engaging in ideological disputes with public servants. His treatment of both the President of the Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, and the former Solicitor-General, Justin Gleeson SC, has been nothing less than disgraceful.

Mr Gleeson was effectively sidelined by Senator Brandis when Senator Brandis issued a ministerial direction that anyone seeking advice from the Solicitor-General had to seek his permission first. Senator Brandis then tried to claim that Mr Gleeson was consulted on his ministerial direction. He misled the parliament twice on this matter, and when confronted with the facts described it as 'a semantic argument'. To add insult to injury, Senator Brandis failed to consult Mr Gleeson on key antiterrorism legislation, except for the very early preliminary drafts. In August 2015, Senator Brandis told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that Mr Gleeson had been consulted on the constitutionality of the bill; however, it was revealed late last year that he had not. We need to remember that in 2009 Mr Turnbull claimed that the penalty for misleading parliament should be resignation or dismissal. Yet Senator Brandis, a serial offender, continues to get off scot-free. And what was it that led to Senator Brandis's public dispute with Mr Gleeson? He picked that fight because Mr Gleeson intervened in a case to protect $300 million of taxpayers' money. In other words, Mr Gleeson was doing his job.

It was also the case, in Senator Brandis's attack on Professor Triggs, that she was doing no more or less than the job she was appointed to do. After seeking to encourage Professor Triggs's resignation by offering her another role, Senator Brandis failed to defend her against relentless attacks by coalition senators during Senate estimates. His attack on Professor Triggs was an attempt to undermine the independence of the Human Rights Commission because the government did not like the advice they were being given. So shameful was Senator Brandis's mistreatment of Professor Triggs that he was censured by the Senate for it—and rightly so. Professor Triggs has acted with integrity and professionalism. It is a great testament to her character that she has been so restrained in the face of such vicious public attacks.

Either of these incidents should have been enough to cost Senator Brandis his job, but they are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this Attorney-General's shameful behaviour. In response to a very reasonable freedom of information request for Senator Brandis to produce his ministerial diary, the senator spent three years and thousands of dollars in taxpayers' money fighting the order through the courts. Senator Brandis made the bizarre claim that the simple act of hitting the print button on his Outlook calendar would be an unreasonable administrative burden for his office. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal found this claim to be baseless. Whatever resources were expended in processing the request paled in comparison to the money spent fighting it.

Senator Brandis lost his final appeal, which went to the full bench of the Federal Court, and yet he took another six months to comply with the order. This delay put the Attorney-General—the highest law officer in this land—in danger of being held in contempt of court. How ironic! How unseemly! How embarrassing! It is fortunate for the Attorney-General that he finally complied and saved himself and his government that embarrassment. But embarrassment is something that seems to follow Senator Brandis and clings to him like a limpet.

The latest in the Attorney-General's string of missteps was his spectacular backflip on funding cuts to community legal centres. Of course, Labor welcomes this backflip, but it comes at the end of three years of fear and uncertainty about the future of the community legal sector in Australia. And, embarrassingly, for these three years, Senator Brandis was trying to claim that this massive 30 per cent cut did not even exist.

It was very real for the community legal centres that I and shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus met with in Hobart. These centres were facing the prospect of cutting staff and turning away hundreds of clients. The people who need the assistance of CLCs are some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in Australia. They seek help for such problems as escaping domestic violence, getting Centrelink payments reinstated or fighting unfair dismissal. Without the safety net of community legal services, they usually have nowhere else to turn. I have to ask: did Senator Brandis initiate this backflip, or was it forced upon him because government backbenchers could no longer cop the backlash from the sheer cruelty of the cut that was proposed?

Senator Brandis's incompetence is not just confined to the Attorney-General's portfolio. He has the distinction of being the first arts minister in Australia's history to anger and alienate the entire arts industry. He did so by slashing funding from the Australian Council and other arts bodies, and diverting much of the funding to his own ministerial slush fund, known as the Catalyst program.

As the lead Labor senator on the inquiry into this disaster, I participated in hearings across Australia where 200 independent artists and arts organisations lined up, one after the other, to criticise Senator Brandis's slush fund. In 65 hours of evidence, the government managed to produce one independent witness—just one—at the final hearing, to support their position. It would appear that the only solution to the Catalyst arts funding debacle was to dump Senator Brandis from the Arts portfolio, with his successor, Senator Fifield, given the unenviable task of cleaning up the mess that was left behind.

My time is running out in this contribution and I have yet to mention Senator Brandis's train wreck of an interview where he failed to explain the concept of metadata, despite having carriage of the data retention bill, or his infamous declaration that Australians have a right to be bigots, which he made while defending proposals to axe section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and allow more racist hate speech in Australia. Nor have I mentioned, so far, Senator Brandis's bungling of the proposed marriage equality plebiscite, where Senator Brandis got every detail wrong—from funding to how the votes would be counted and the wording of the question itself. Mr Turnbull failed to back up Senator Brandis on his pledge to hold the plebiscite by the end of 2016.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, Senator Bilyk. Senator Smith, do you have a legitimate point of order?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Smith.

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

Senator Smith, you are one of the honest ones on that side, I have to say. Senator Brandis is like an anvil tied to the feet of the Turnbull government, constantly dragging them down with a stream of stuff-ups. If the Prime Minister had any sense of self-preservation he would sack the incompetent Senator Brandis. (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is going to be very tough to follow that act. I understand that, before I came in, Senator Bilyk was asking whether there was anything in the budget for Tasmania.

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

I was—besides tax increases.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased she is here to listen. My very good and hardworking colleague, Senator Nash, was able to point out a couple of things to me very quickly. In addition to the $730 million for the Mersey Community Hospital, which—

Senator Smith interjecting—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

It is $730 million, Senator Smith, which is a good outcome. If Senator Bilyk is suggesting we close it, then I am glad she is putting that on record.

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

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The $200 million extra for the Building Better Regions Fund will be available to Tasmania, and that is in addition to the $260 million for the Launceston City Deal and, in the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, the $25 million especially for Tasmania. With that short summation, I thought I would let Senator Bilyk off the hook from having to read the budget papers for herself by letting her know what is in the budget for Tasmania.

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

Two things! Two things for Tasmania.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And, clearly, with her saying 'two things', maths is not her strong point either. I am pleased to be able to continue my pattern of rising to speak on the good and positive things coming out of Tasmania, and I am pleased that Senator Urquhart is also here as a strong representative of the northwest coast.

Today it is my pleasure to speak about two very hardworking Tasmanians: Ben and Sally Milbourne. I want to talk specifically about their vision for Tasmania and how proud they are of what our great state has to offer. Ben and Sally have a passion for quality food, and they know how central this is to Tasmania's brand. As I have said in this place before, brand is extremely important, given Tasmania's status as a food tourism destination and, increasingly, as an exporter of our fine food and produce. Ben Milbourne—who some in this chamber, including Senator Urquhart, may know—attributes his love of food to his grandmother. He says that when he was younger she used to bake each morning for a number of decades for the 40-plus tradesmen employed by the family business. He learned from her how important and how wonderful food could be. Ben grew up on the beautiful northwest coast of Tasmania, as did I. Having done so, Ben learned from a very early age the beautiful and clean taste of Tasmanian seafood, freshly cooked, caught from the sea. He recounts that as a child he would go on family camping trips, and 'would take out Dad's boat, go fishing and cook the fish. We would go diving for Abalone and cook it on the campfire.' That is a wonderful recollection to have about the wonderful produce we have available in our beautiful state.

Cooking has always been a passion of Ben's, but it was not where he was headed initially, with a career in teaching beckoning first. As a teacher, though, Ben used food to teach his students about chemistry. He would explain to his students that there were just over 100 elements on the periodic table, then use an analogy of a pantry to demonstrate all of those elements and make the point that that is how we have built the world around us. The year of 2012, when MasterChef season 4 was airing, proved to be a turning point for Ben. Indeed, Sally, his wife, also saw the opportunity for both of them to pursue their passion for food. The experience allowed Ben to refine his skills, immerse himself in food and be taught by some of the most experienced chefs in the business, and he has been able to bring all of those skills back to our great state of Tasmania.

Since MasterChef, Ben has made regular appearances on Ready Steady Cook and Everyday Gourmet and now has his own TV shows, including Ben's Menu and Food Lab, which both air on Channel Ten. Central to a lot of Ben's TV work has been the promotion of Tasmania's fine produce, food and drink, and I cannot blame him. It is a wonderful thing to be able to use his skills and ability to communicate through the media to promote these wonderful assets that Tasmania has.

On that note, I think this is a good opportunity to touch on a great project that is unfolding in the northwest of Tasmania, the Devonport Living City project, which I know many Tasmanians will support. The redevelopment of the central Devonport business district will accommodate a great facility, which will include what will be known as 'Providore Place'. It will be home to farmers' markets, some top-end restaurants and also a TV studio for filming Ben's cooking show. Right there on the north-west coast of Tasmania we will be able to showcase all of those beautiful things that are on offer in this part of the world. Hopefully, too, we will see a training facility available for hospitality sector students. That is an important thing, because we need to enhance our offering by ensuring we have a good level of skill amongst those working in the hospitality sector.

All of this showcases a brilliant offering of the great north-west coast of Tasmania. Inside one hour from Devonport's Living City, you can get to amazing distilleries, beautiful farms and vineyards and taste all of these fruits. By putting them all in one place, Devonport Living City is going to be a great boon for that community, and we are going to see great economic growth and some opportunities for that region.

All of that is based right where the Spirit of Tasmania docks, on the Mersey River in Devonport, which is where tourists often decide whether they are going to turn left, to go straight to Hobart and bypass the regions, or whether they will turn right and visit some of our beautiful, lesser known places, our better kept secrets along the north-west and north coasts; indeed, down the west coast as well. Living City is one of the many projects that will go a long way to growing the sector, as I have said.

I am looking forward to hosting a forum in the Meander district very soon to enable tourism business operators to have a say about ways in which we can grow the tourism sector for that community, where visitor numbers are not what they are in other parts, particularly around Hobart and Launceston. I am looking forward to having business operators there, along with the Minister for Tourism, Hospitality and Events, Will Hodgman, local government representatives and the Tourism Industry Council. We will be able to talk about projects like the Cradle Mountain upgrade, which I think is a great project and I will be pushing very hard for it in the years to come.

Going back to Ben and Sally Milbourne, the chief reason I wanted to speak about them today relates to training and skills. As I said, Living City may provide an opportunity for them to provide training in the hospitality sector. Ben honed his passion for food while on MasterChef, but anyone who has met Ben and Sally will know that they are a formidable couple. Both are teachers by trade, and they strive for quality in learning and also in food, which is important with our brand. It was great to hear Sally speak recently—in fact, just last week—at the Devonport Chamber of Commerce and Industry women's professional breakfast, on her background and also the journey that she and Ben have made: the decisions they have taken and investments they have made in promoting Tasmania the way they have.

With increased tourism demand for Tasmania comes increased need to ensure that tourism and hospitality services provided in our state are of the highest quality. We need to know that both interstate and international visitors can expect a high level of service. If you have a good offering in the way of food, beverages and accommodation, you need to complement that with highly trained staff to provide what people are expecting and used to in other tourist destinations. You cannot have one without the other. That requires investment in our vocational and education training sector, not only in cooking but also for service staff, transport staff, front-of-house staff and management staff. Ben and Sally recognise this and have seen an opportunity to bring together their passion for food, their love of their home state and their background in teaching. They recognise that we need to grow our ability to train the much-needed workforce for our hospitality sector and are willing to back their ideas with hard work.

This is an important thing to recognise—which I do—at a time when we have high youth unemployment rates in Tasmania, particularly in the north and north-west, and when we have been battling school retention rates as a result of a broken education system where people thought school finished at year 10. That is a problem that is being addressed now. I am looking forward to hosting a forum of interested parties in Tasmania in the very near future, with the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Karen Andrews, to enable people from the sectors that require this training to come along and have their say about how best the system can be structured to enable them to access the skills they need in the workers they want, and enable them to grow their businesses.

The reason I am mentioning this now is that I agree with the Milbournes about the need to ensure that we have training for our youth, to provide them with job opportunities in our regions. I commend Ben and Sally Milbourne for their drive, their commitment and their passion and the goods things they are doing for our community, for investing and backing the local community, for doing something to give others opportunities and for supporting the need to grow skills, particularly where they are needed in the regions.