Brian Burston (NSW, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2018.

There are things in this life that transcend partisan politics. Even though the matters we debate in this chamber are often of great importance to the lives of Australians, it is rarely the case that what we debate is life or death to most people in an immediate sense. This bill is in the rare category of being of immediate concern to all Australians no matter what their politics.

We all watched with great distress as the reports of drought-affected farmers filtered into our electorate inboxes and onto our televisions. The sight of dying cattle and desperate owners and staff touched all of us deeply. We have also seen fire and flood on a regular basis and endured the consequences of global financial crises.

These hardships, though tough, often bring out the best in Australians. Within moments of hearing that our compatriots are in need, the spirit of mateship kicks in, leading to private donations, fundraising events and no shortage of offers to help. Australians are generous people, it is heartwarming to see, and long may the spirit of philanthropy reign in this land.

But these hardships ought not be left solely to ad hoc support. Nor should they remain in the political sphere of a sitting government to decide if, how and when such support should be offered to an industry or a community.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2018 calls for the creation of a cross-party joint committee to assist in the support and reconstruction of Australian rural and manufacturing industries in times of crisis. The Australia Fund would have the ability to provide emergency and ongoing drought, flood and bushfire relief. It could loan money to businesses, act as a guarantor for loans, capitalise or waive interest, purchase existing bank loans and assume control of relevant property of the business for a specified time. In this way, the fund would be designed to enable businesses to continue operations to earn revenue, employ workers and pay taxes, rather than being prematurely wound up. This would support communities affected by natural disasters for the long term.

In order that the committee may deal with what is needed in Australian communities, it is intended that the committee would undertake hearings in all capital cities and major rural centres and specifically examine the impact on rural Australia of ongoing drought and global market price fluctuations for primary industry produce.

The committee's terms of reference would also include reviewing existing bankruptcy and insolvency laws, with the aim of introducing legislation designed to assist companies to trade through difficult times, rather than be closed down. The existing taxation laws relating to bankruptcy would also be reviewed. The possible introduction of the equivalent to the United States chapter 11 provisions would also be investigated.

The committee is designed to be as representative as possible, so, as well as having two government and two opposition members from both houses, it would also have two minor party or Independent members from both houses. At the completion of its inquiry the committee would table before parliament a detailed report of its findings and recommendations.

I have said before in this chamber that Australia is truly a blessed country. Not only are our natural resources bountiful and our land fruitful, but our people are generous and kind. In supporting this bill, senators will be able to give relief to those who suffer as a result of events beyond their control above the party political landscape, and direct it to those that all Australians see the need to support for the good of all. I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

I thank Senator Burston for bringing on for debate the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2018, and I appreciate what Senator Burston has said today with regard to the intent behind the introduction of the bill—what it does and how he believes it will benefit Australians who are doing it tough. As Senator Burston outlined for all of us here and for those listening, the bill would set up a parliamentary committee to consider the matters relating to relief and support for those manufacturing and regional businesses that would be impacted by natural disasters or global economic events and allow these businesses to continue to operate through these adverse circumstances, whatever they may be. Obviously, there are a great number of events that might fall into the category we're talking about here. Natural disasters come in all shapes and forms and, indeed, sizes these days, and with very little warning as well, and they have many, many flow-on and knock-on consequences for many regional communities across the country. Additionally, when we talk about the economic factors, events like world global financial crises, or even local issues, such as commodity prices et cetera—those things have an impact. I'm not quite sure whether all of those things are covered by this bill, having a look at the functions of the committee and of course the definitions relating to the term 'crisis'. But that's something I'll come to a bit later on.

This Australia Fund that would be set up, should a parliamentary inquiry run its course and recommend that the fund be set up and should a government then give effect to those recommendations, would provide a range of various mechanisms to support businesses, as Senator Burston outlined: loans, interest waivers and financial grants, either through industry bodies or directly to individual businesses, obviously taking into account the specific circumstances of the situation the fund would be dealing with. Indeed, Senator Burston also mentioned that the committee would look at assessing whether bankruptcy and insolvency laws could be or should be relaxed as another means of trying to assist businesses get through these tough times, largely—in fact almost always—not of their own doing.

It is important though, I think, to reflect on the fact that the parliament—not this one but the one that preceded the one we are now in—inquired into a very, very similar matter, a similar bill, to assist businesses with the same sorts of issues. I think it was chaired by Dr Andrew Laming and had a number of hearings across a number of cities across the country, including Hobart. I'll turn to some of the evidence that was given to that inquiry, particularly at the Hobart hearing, from a number of industry bodies and the like a little later on. I think it's important to point out that, given this parliament—or at least the preceding parliament—has inquired into a virtually identical issue previously and given that the matter has been discharged, the parliament, with the limited time we have before us between now and whenever an election may occur, should spend its time wisely. Reconsidering the same issue, in effect the same terms of reference, would not be a good use of time. Particularly when it comes to issues of urgency like this, dealing with natural disaster relief—things like drought and other types of natural disaster—I think Australians want the government to just get on with it.

I'm all for trying to restore the Australian people's faith in politicians, but I don't think having another parliamentary inquiry into an issue of such significance, when one has already been conducted, is a great way of trying to get an outcome on this issue. I think a government, perhaps with the input of other senators and other political parties, is better off dealing directly with the communities affected and understanding directly what they need, not through a parliamentary inquiry but just by getting out of this building, getting out of our Senate and joint committees, and going and talking to people. I think it's a novel approach, but it's one that does seem to yield results, particularly in places like Tasmania.

The previous inquiry did go to a number of issues that were cited as mechanisms for support already in place for regional communities and businesses that do suffer and face the consequences of these disasters, both environmental and economic. Of the three hearings that were held throughout the country, in Canberra, Melbourne and, of course, Tasmania, the parliament heard from peak bodies, including the National Farmers' Federation, AUSVEG, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council and also experts in disaster relief and recovery, including the Tasmanian Bushfire Recovery Taskforce, who had a lot of work to do following the 2013 bushfires in south-east Tasmania. The committee also took evidence from public service officials from a number of government departments and, indeed, a number of individual businesses. The committee received around 18 submissions.

Going back to that point, during the conduct of that inquiry, about a degree of evidence provided around programs and initiatives already on offer to support Australian communities, individuals and businesses, we have things, as I mentioned already. There are programs to support those suffering the impact of the drought that this country faces. There's the $5 billion Drought Future Fund that's been set up, that will, over the next 10 years, grow to the value of $5 billion, noting that drought relief and dealing with environmental conditions is dynamic and an ever-changing occurrence that is sadly becoming more common. We need to just get on, hit the ground and support people with the these programs, rather than talk about them and rather than reprosecute the issues in a parliamentary inquiry. We need to get out and actually provide the support and the resources necessary. Of course, there's always room for improvement. People who want the best for their communities and who are on the ground, who run programs like this, will always listen to that feedback. I think it's important to take it all into account.

These programs, like the Drought Future Fund, will provide community services and assistance when it comes to the conduct of research and will also assist with the adoption of various new, emerging and innovative technologies. They provide advice when it comes to the construction or reconstruction of infrastructure, to make sure we are futureproofing the investments we are making now so we don't have the same problems. All too often we see timber bridges that were washed away in regional communities being replaced with timber bridges, and we know, next time we have a one-in-50-years event, it will wash away again. We've got to make sure we're using the best technology possible. While that is a flood related example, programs like the Drought Future Fund will assist farmers, communities and businesses related to this sector to be equipped into the future.

Similarly, the government, rather than talking about it, gets on with investing in things like the Medical Research Future Fund. It is about putting aside funds to make sure that we can invest in the future to make sure we can support emerging innovative technologies, rather than just talking about it here in this parliament. In terms of supporting industry, the Medical Research Future Fund does exactly that: it supports the manufacturing sector in a number of our communities. We have the $100 million Advanced Manufacturing Fund, the $238 million Industry Growth Centres Initiative, the $90 billion continuous shipbuilding industry program and the $220 million Regional Jobs and Investment Packages. These programs do deliver tangible outcomes. They are there to support industry, business and these communities that are affected in the way that, as I think Senator Burston rightly points out, is felt particularly in regional communities. They have tangible outcomes that people benefit from. That's why I don't believe it's right for us to initiate another inquiry into a matter we've already inquired into as a parliament, but, rather, get on with the job of actually doing what people want us to do—that is, support those regional communities.

Earlier on, I did refer to the Hobart hearing of the previous inquiry, which was held in February of 2015. A number of very credible witnesses appeared at this hearing, including representatives of the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Unions Tasmania, the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council, the Tasmanian Fire Service, WAFarmers, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and the Tasmanian Bushfire Recovery Taskforce. Upon hearing what a number of these witnesses had to say, I thought there were a number of things borne out of this that are important for government to take on board when it comes to considering the design and construction of programs to assist communities, businesses, families and individuals to be resilient in these times of need.

At this Hobart hearing, a number of the members of the other place were present and a number of issues were canvassed, starting with the evidence given by Professor Carter from the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, where it was difficult to sort of pinpoint the definition of what is a natural disaster, particularly when it comes to issues that impact on the aquaculture industry and related industries. In Tasmania in recent years we've had Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome hit our oyster industry, which wreaked havoc for quite some time. It cost jobs. Whether or not that could be classified as a natural disaster is something that Professor Carter questioned in his evidence. This was in response to questions from the member for Denison—soon to be the member for Clark—Mr Wilkie: how would a fund like this support businesses like that, if they happened to fall outside the definition of a natural disaster? Those things needed to be taken into account. Through the course of the conduct of this inquiry, and through the recommendations that have been presented as a result, those are things the government has to listen to.

Indeed, it was acknowledged that we need to make sure that there is funding available for research to increase the resilience of these businesses. Professor Carter, as a research scientist, is very keen to make sure that we do structure these industries—particularly ones like the oyster industry, for example—which provide hundreds of jobs in very regional communities in Tasmania, so that they are geared up as best as they possibly can be, using the best technologies available them into the future.

Moving now to the advice provided by the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the two witnesses who appeared were Mr Michael Bailey and Mrs Susan Parr, who was then the chair of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They were very frank about their views on what was being proposed here. They were concerned about the narrowness of the terms of reference of the inquiry and about what the resulting fund would cover, should one be established. The biggest concern they held—in the evidence that I was able to read from their contribution to that hearing in 2015—was around the unintended consequences of perhaps providing support to businesses who feel less inclined to make wise business decisions, knowing that there is a safety net. I'm not sure I share that view 100 per cent, but it is something the chamber did point out as a matter of concern when looking at how you would structure such a fund. All of these things can't be discounted. We need to make sure that whatever the design is, whatever the government does in terms of supporting communities, actually does do the right thing by the community more broadly, that it ticks those boxes when it comes to the original intent of being able to help those industries sustain themselves through the tough times, and that it keeps those jobs in those regional communities and enables those businesses that people have invested in—that create jobs—to carry on business and not go to the wall, which we have seen before, sadly.

Taking a look at the advice of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry particularly, they went to the issue of insurance premiums. If a fund, like the Australia Fund, were to be set up, one of the concerns the TCCI had related to whether a business may decide, for instance, not to take out appropriate insurance, knowing that, being in a regional community, they thought, 'Well, you know what? If things go bad, if we have a flood or a bushfire or something like that, or if there is a major economic event, I might be covered by the fund.' So therefore businesses might see this as a disincentive to taking out appropriate insurance, because they know that, if things do go wrong, they can save themselves the cost on the way through, on the premium, and if things do go wrong they will still be covered. That was a matter drawn out by, as I say, the member for Denison, Mr Wilkie. These unintended consequences could create an uneven playing field for businesses in the community, and that is not what we want to see. I think that would be classified as an unintended consequence, and I'm sure Senator Burston would agree with me as well.

Moving to the evidence provided by Unions Tasmania, there were concerns there about, again, the breadth of the terms of reference; whether the fund and its intentions had missed the mark; and whether the fund might have been a way of perhaps investing in entities that were looking to shed workers, using natural disasters and economic events as a reason for doing so and using the funds from such a fund to support themselves in mechanising their workforce and doing away with the jobs. Again, that would miss the point of what we're talking about here. The families who require funds to pay their bills, to pay the mortgage and to be able to afford to send their kids to school need jobs. A fund like this could potentially end up with jobs being lost, because it assists a business in basically doing away with employees and replacing them with a mechanised workforce. That would definitely be an unintended consequence.

The Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council similarly had a number of concerns around whether this type of fund would apply to sea based or aquaculture industries equally as it does to terrestrial based industries—on-land farms, viticulture and other forms of business. That was a concern for them. That was not clear for them. It remains the case. Going back to the evidence provided by Professor Carter from IMAS, it is difficult to properly say whether something like this would help businesses that operate in our waterways and on the sea as well.

So there was a whole heap of evidence provided there, raising a whole lot of questions which I'm not sure were properly answered at the time but that give a government food for thought when it comes to structuring programs to provide direct relief to regional communities and to businesses that need it and to ensure that we have those jobs that we so desperately need. All members of this place talk regularly about doing what can be done and doing our best to ensure that regional communities have the economic benefits of larger population centres. It is regional communities—Senator Burston is right—that bear the brunt of the effects of these sorts of events, so we need to make sure that we gear ourselves up properly. That's why I point to the Future Drought Fund and other industry related future funds to make sure that communities, industries, families and businesses get the support they need.

It's also important to point out that it's not just the realm of the state government. We've seen it in in many parts of this country. Again, if I turn to Tasmania, in 2013 we had the Dunalley bushfires. We've also had, as I've already referenced here, the POMS outbreak in south-eastern Tasmania which decimated our oyster industry and took with it many, many jobs of young Tasmanians; the 2016 northern Tasmania floods, which we experienced during the double-dissolution election campaign; and, of course, in May of this year the extreme weather events in southern Tasmania, which had a huge impact on businesses, households and a number of industries right across the south of Tasmania. State and local governments have a huge responsibility in that respect. The state government in Tasmania, in those examples, provided huge resources in supporting these communities and initiating programs to make sure that appropriate action was taken to support communities and industries and protect those jobs. So it's not just about the Commonwealth. It's not just about a fund.

Fundamentally, I don't believe having a parliamentary inquiry into something we've already, in effect, identically inquired into is the way to support Australian communities, Australian industries and Australian jobs. So I'm not a supporter of this bill, I'm afraid to tell Senator Burston, but, as I say, it's important to debate these issues thoroughly.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise, too, to make a contribution on this morning's private senator's bill, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australia Fund Bill 2018. The purpose of this bill, as described, is to establish a joint parliamentary committee to investigate establishing an Australia Fund.

I want to say from the outset that Labor has some concerns about the mechanism that's being used today to establish this parliamentary committee. Under normal circumstances, such a committee would be established by motion. That's certainly the normal method for establishing a committee. I was hopeful, in listening to the senator's contributions this morning, to come to some better understanding about why this mechanism was sought, but I note that it was a rather short contribution and I certainly didn't get any clarification about why this was the mechanism. So I just put that on the record: we have concerns about legislating to establish a committee when the mechanism is already well established for this to be done by motion.

But, that being said, there's no doubt that, should such a committee be established, it would look into issues that are of great interest to Labor. According to the explanatory memorandum, the fund, as described by Senator Burston, would be designed to assist in the support and reconstruction of Australian rural and manufacturing industries in a time of crisis. It would assist in situations of natural disaster, such as drought, flood and bushfire, or in cases of a world financial crisis or unfair market intervention or manipulation.

It is envisaged, according to the explanatory memorandum, that:

… the Australia Fund would have the ability, on the basis of an assessment of the industry and/or businesses, to provide emergency and ongoing drought/flood/bushfire relief, loan money to businesses, act as a guarantor for loans, capitalise or waive interest, purchase existing bank loans, and assume control of relevant property of the business for a specified time.

Through you, Acting Deputy President, that's a rather extraordinary range of capacities that Senator Burston is attempting to enable this fund to undertake, and I have some concern that we have had very little detail about the way in which some of the things that are proposed and documented in the explanatory memorandum would, practically, operate.

The fund, according to the EM, would be designed to enable businesses to continue to operate, in order to earn revenue, employ workers and pay taxes, rather than to be prematurely wound up, and to support communities affected by natural disasters. Well, of course, the Labor Party is always interested in jobs and keeping people in jobs, but, again, I think that—with the issues of companies being wound up and concerns that have been raised over the course of this government's tenure of five years so far—there are many issues around insolvency that are live and are worthy of government's consideration, and certainly have been advised to be pursued, that are currently not being considered at all.

The bill articulates a determination to provide funds for industry and/or companies restructuring, and the acquisition of new technologies to make businesses more economically viable and internationally competitive. Again, those are enormous goals.

As part of its investigation into the need for the fund, it's intended that the committee would undertake hearings in all capital cities and major rural centres, and, specifically, examine the impact on rural Australia of ongoing drought and world market price fluctuations for primary industry produce. I will make some further comments around this, but, at this point, can I absolutely indicate that—as Labor has been pointing out, day after day, when we've gathered in this place, and in our practical action, where we have the capacity to control the agenda, of getting our committees out and into regional and rural Australia—there is a big problem out there. There is a massive problem.

I note Senator Siewert here in the chamber as well, preparing for the next private senator's bill that's to advance in this place this morning. Senator Siewert and I have been out in regional and remote communities inquiring into mental health services and access to mental health services. The standard that is accepted in the bush—the risk that is there—which is impacting on people and their businesses because they simply are not getting access to basic health services, is of critical concern. It speaks to a government that are completely out of touch with regional and remote Australia. Despite their formal partnership with the National Party, who claim to be the party of the bush, we have seen this government cut services, cut support to small business, cut away at the very fabric of the communities that the National Party's supposed to be standing up for, and the National Party have not been here to defend them. I think that is why we saw some very significant swings to Independents in the Victorian election—because of the government's abrogation of its responsibility to go out into the bush and then come back into this place and represent them. They should stop pretending that they support the bush and stand up and do something about it. I'm not surprised that one of the elements that Senator Burston has embedded in his bill is a trip out to the bush, to basically go and have a look and see what's going on, because the current representatives in the National Party are not standing up for their constituency. That is absolutely the case.

The committee's terms of reference would also include reviewing existing bankruptcy and insolvency laws with the aim of introducing legislation designed to assist companies to trade through difficult times rather than be closed down. The existing taxation laws relating to bankruptcy would also be reviewed. If there's sufficient time after I've finished my prepared material, I will go to the issue of insolvency and bankruptcy and the recommendations that were made a very long time ago by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which Senator Ketter was a part. We raised significant concerns early in the years of this parliament and made very significant recommendations aimed at looking at what's going on in that space. But the government, just like they resisted the banking royal commission for 600 days, have failed to undertake adequate scrutiny of what's going on in insolvency. Certainly we heard an awful lot around the impaired loans inquiry—and a lot of bank loan concerns that were raised by many from rural areas were from your constituency of Western Australia, Acting Deputy President Sterle. There's a lot of work that the government could have been doing on this the whole time, but over five years we've seen them in disarray and not doing what has to be done for the benefit of small businesses and small regional communities across this country. At the completion of the inquiry, the committee proposes to table before parliament a detailed report into its finding and recommendations. It's indicated, in the EM, that the bill will have no financial impact.

Labor is deeply concerned about many of the issues that the proposed Australia Fund committee would deal with but none more so than the issue of financial misconduct in the banking sector. The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry is undertaking very important work. Labor called for this royal commission—Labor pushed for this royal commission—for 600 days, and the Liberal-National Party fought tooth and nail to prevent it from happening. As more and more financial scandals began to pile up, it became clear to Labor that this was not a case of just a few bad apples. The excuses from the big banks started wearing very thin, and the apologies started to become quite routine: 'Yes, I'm sorry; I'm sorry'. I don't know about you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I was taught that when you say you're sorry you are supposed to undertake a change of behaviour and not continue to repeat the old one. What we've seen, revealed during the course of this inquiry, is the absolute disregard for community standards around banking and the banks constantly returning to inappropriate behaviours and unethical action.

In April 2016, the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Treasurer took the bold and courageous steps of announcing that Labor would call for a royal commission into the banks and financial services industry. It was clear to us that Australia needs better protections and that banks and financial firms needed to lift their game. Again I want to acknowledge the great work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which Senator Ketter was a very significant and valuable member, and its joint report. The joint report made serious recommendations that it was time for us to call a banking royal commission and described the egregious behaviours that were replete within the sector.

The decision to call that royal commission, though, was not easy, particularly from opposition. You'll recall, Mr Deputy President, that we were pilloried for it, we were derided by the government—including by the current Prime Minister, the member for Cook, who told us that a royal commission would be nothing more than 'a QC complaints desk', 'a populist whinge' and 'a reckless distraction'. Well, I'd say the Australian history book will show that the prime ministership of Mr Morrison is in fact a reckless distraction. This government and the Prime Minister consistently asserted that a royal commission would be a waste of time. They did everything they could to stop it from happening. They voted against a royal commission no fewer than 26 times in the parliament. They set up parliamentary inquiries to try and cut across a royal commission. They tried to show that a royal commission was unnecessary. They tried to convince the Australian people that we didn't need a full-blown royal commission. They thought that, by doing so, they could protect the banks from scrutiny.

But they were wrong. Labor's determination to stand up for the people who were being ripped off by banks was the driving force that continued to push until we got the call for a royal commission. The evidence that we built with the community and through the work of other parliamentary committees was simply too strong to be overlooked. Victims of financial services and the misconduct that they experienced came forward. They came through week after week. Media stories—and members of parliament standing up for them—told the Australian community about an industry that had lost its ethical and moral compass.

When this government finally saw the writing on the wall, when they finally caved in to the pressure from Labor and agreed to a royal commission at the very end of 2017—mindful that we called for it in April 2016, more than a year earlier—the now Prime Minister, the member for Cook, described the decision as 'regrettable'. The Prime Minister and the government thought it was 'regrettable' that the misconduct of financial firms would finally be exposed to the Australian people. They thought it 'regrettable' that victims had lost their homes, their livelihoods and even family members because of that very misconduct. They thought it 'regrettable' that such people would have the chance to tell their stories. They said it was 'regrettable' that the toxic, unethical culture that has infiltrated the financial services sector might finally be exposed.

The Prime Minister's comments that day betrayed him. They showed him for what he is. They showed the Australian people very clearly which side he and his government will always be on, and that is the side of the big banks. When the government have been hostile to a royal commission from the outset, it's no surprise that they severely curtailed the time for the royal commission to do its work. The royal commission has barely had the opportunity to scratch the surface of the misconduct that's occurred in the financial services industry. Commissioner Hayne and his team have done an admirable job—indeed, an extraordinary job given the circumstances that prevail, the circumstances constructed by this government. Commissioner Hayne was given a mere 14 months to inquire into all of these things—retail banking; home lending; consumer lending, including credit cards and personal loans; small business lending; farm lending; general insurance; life insurance; superannuation; and financial advice. Fourteen months was all this government would allow. After 600 days of resisting a royal commission, and after voting against it 26 times, that's the best they could do. They tried to make it as short as they possibly could. When we look at those facts, the commission has had just two weeks to spend on each of these complex subject areas, some of which touched the lives of millions of Australians and some of which relate to services used by nearly every member of the Australian community.

The royal commission received over 10,000 submissions from members of the public. Ten thousand Australians took the time to let the commission know about their experiences of bank and financial services provider misconduct. But, because of the restrictive time line imposed on the commission by this government, who thought the whole endeavour was 'regrettable', only 27 victims had the chance to tell their story in person—27 out of 10,000 Australians who made written submissions. That is a disgrace. That is an absolute disgrace and a shame on this government.

We've learnt through the hearings of the commission that this misconduct was so widespread that it affected hundreds of thousands of Australians, if not millions of Australians. Labor has called for the royal commission to be extended to allow more victims to have the opportunity to share their stories. The government has stubbornly refused to give the commission more time.

This is why the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for financial services, along with some of my Labor colleagues around the country, have run a series of bank victim round tables to hear from some of the tens of thousands of victims whose voices haven't been heard through the royal commission process. The stories we have heard through these round tables have been harrowing. People around the country are hurting. The consequences of the misconduct identified by the royal commission and indeed—

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

I raise a point of order on relevance. I was under the impression that this debate was about Australia's Future Fund. I've listened to the speaker and not once has that been mentioned. She has been talking about some banking royal commission which doesn't seem to be relevant to the terms of this particular bill or the matter before the Senate.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator. I'm sorry, Senator O'Neill—on a point of order?

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

No. Let me rule on this. Senator Macdonald, there is no point of order. You know that speeches in this place are far ranging. If we wanted to start applying that, I think half your side would have to sit down every time they stood up.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. Indeed, if the senator had been in the chamber, he would have heard my discussion of the explanatory memorandum, and financial misconduct was seriously a part of this bill, so not only has he abused a point of order but he was wrong in fact.

The stories we have heard through the round tables have been harrowing. People around the country are hurting. The consequences of misconduct identified by the royal commission and indeed the consequences of other misconduct that Commissioner Hayne didn't have the time to consider are still being felt by families in every state and every territory, every city and every town in Australia and indeed in the rural and remote contexts that the senator proposes that this committee should attend to.

The government never wanted a royal commission. They fought tooth and nail to stop it from happening. They called it 'regrettable', and they tried to get it over and done with as quickly as possible. But Labor will not let this commission wrap up quietly and have its recommendations sitting in a filing cabinet in Treasury gathering dust, which is what I expect that the government will do with this report, as they have done with the parliamentary joint committee's inquiry into life insurance. It is just sitting there, with no response, as if it doesn't affect millions of people. Life insurance is critical. They've got the report.

Through you, Acting Deputy President, to Senator Burston: they are a government that, even when you do the work and you report, still do nothing on it, because they don't think they have to, and they're going to protect their mates at the top end of town—unlike Labor. We will roll up our sleeves. We'll continue to speak with victims, with industry, with consumer groups and with regulators, and we will consider the commission's report in detail when it's released—in what we would say is premature time—in February next year. We will make sure that the abuses and the misconduct that have been exposed through the royal commission and through victim round tables never happen again.

Of course, Labor is also deeply concerned about the impact that the drought is having on our farmers. Australian farming communities are being affected by a shocking and protracted drought, and Labor knows that governments have a role to play to assist drought-affected farming families. This is why Labor has always stood ready to support meaningful drought assistance by the government. Sadly, though, the Turnbull-Morrison government has been slow in this area, while it has been pushing a fast pace for the banking sector. This government's done nothing to develop a long-term drought strategy. Unfortunately, one of the first acts of the Abbott-Joyce government, elected in 2013, was to abolish the COAG council that dealt with these matters in a responsible matter. As a result, for five years drought reforms stalled—and our farmers, the environment and the economy are paying the price.

Labor will provide a science based approach to help farmers better adapt to what may be a new normal, and Labor will ask the council of RDCs to lead the development of an agricultural climate response plan to dramatically increase the uptake of drought mitigation, best practice and sustainable farming practice methods. Senator Burston, you've given the opportunity for a discussion of significant issues here in the chamber today, but I do continue to raise concerns about the method in which this is advanced. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave not granted.

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

I thank Senator Burston for raising the proposal to set up a parliamentary committee to inquire into the Australia Fund. From listening to the previous speaker, I have no idea of what the Labor approach to this particular bill is. Whilst we had a very interesting discussion on the banking royal commission, it's not germane to the debate before the parliament. It always amazes me how the Senate has standing orders and rules, and senators bring matters forward for debate, but some senators completely ignore the debate before the chamber and talk about matters that are completely irrelevant to the debate. For this reason, I often wonder why the Senate bothers with standing orders that are never followed or enforced.

Notwithstanding that, this debate on the proposal to set up an Australia Fund is an important debate and, again, I indicate my appreciation to Senator Burston for raising the matter. I might note in passing, though, that the leader of the party that he now represents brought forward a similar bill in the House of Representatives in 2014, when Mr Palmer was a member of the lower house; he was the member for Fairfax at the time. These matters were fully investigated at that time. Part of the proposal for the Australia Fund is to allow rural manufacturing businesses in Australia to continue operating through times of crisis, such as natural disasters and global financial downturns. The previous speaker spoke a little bit about the drought—not much, but she did raise the drought, and I'm glad she raised it, because I've just driven to Canberra via the drought affected shires of Queensland and New South Wales. Over a period of five days I spoke to most of the councils in Queensland that have been subjected to this horrendous drought. I'm very pleased to say—and I take some credit!—that in most of the northern shires that were impacted by drought it was pouring rain as I arrived. So I do, in the best Joh Bjelke-Petersen style, claim that I actually brought the rain with me! Of course, those areas do need a lot more rain; the drought isn't over. But almost unanimously, the councils that represent those areas were appreciative of the work the government had done to help those in need. They understand that governments can't affect the drought. They understand that governments can't make it rain—although I tried to pretend that I could! But they do acknowledge that in these times of crisis the government, including the Queensland and New South Wales state governments, have been very generous in the support they've given. A number of matters were raised with me as to where improvements could be made, and they're matters I'll be talking about at a later time.

I would point out that the government is establishing a $5 billion future drought fund that guarantees support against future droughts faced by farmers and communities in rural and regional Australia, and it's important that not only farmers but also regional communities are considered. Too often, in years gone by, drought relief was given to people on the land without considering the impact of droughts on the communities—on the people in those communities who are not farmers but who support the farmers, help the council create infrastructure, help the hospital and health services to continue operation and help in educating the young people of the community. This future drought fund being established by the Liberal-National government will be setting up guaranteed support against future drought faced by farmers and communities. The future drought fund starts with an initial $3.9 billion investment each year, and $100 million in earnings will be available to be used to fund important water infrastructure and drought resilience projects while the balance is ploughed back into the fund so it grows to $5 billion over the next decade.

I emphasise that this fund will help to fund important infrastructure projects. Regrettably our opponents in this chamber, the Labor Party, because they are beholden to the Greens political party for political support in this and various state parliaments, will never become involved in water infrastructure projects. That's a great shame. Our government funds feasibility studies into water infrastructure possibilities, but we always acknowledge that, under the Constitution, rivers and streams, except where they cross state boundaries, are the province and the responsibility of state governments, and so only state governments can decide to build dams. We have the difficult situation in my state of Queensland where the state government, because it's in power due to the support of the Greens political party, who don't like any form of water management schemes, will not agree to any dams. We promised to build the Rookwood Weir near Rockhampton. After great work by the local member there, Michelle Landry, the state government refused to answer anything and refused to comment for a number of months. It was only as the state election was approaching that they finally agreed that a weir could be build—the Rookwood Weir on the Dawson River, funded by the federal government—and reluctantly put in some funds to match the federal government. But that's the only way we can get any action out of a government that relies on the Greens, who oppose dams, for support. We are very conscious that this future drought fund will have an important water infrastructure role, and I think Senator Burston and Mr Palmer would be grateful for that approach, because I think they both understand the importance of water infrastructure as part of drought resilience in the drier parts of Australia. The challenges of a drought vary from farm to farm, district to district and town to town. The government continually needs to adapt and build capacity to support those communities, and the future drought fund will do just that.

The proposal by Senator Burston and his party also relates to research into things that might help in Australia. I remind the Senate that the Morrison government has created the Medical Research Future Fund, another sovereign body which is specifically designed to supercharge the growth of our health and medical research industry while fuelling jobs, economic growth and export potential. In addition to that, the Australia Fund proposed by Senator Burston relates to manufacturing, but the government has already invested in key measures to ensure people working in manufacturing are supported as industry changes. I remind the Senate that the government has established the $100 million Advanced Manufacturing Fund, the $238 million Industry Growth Centre Initiative and the $90 billion continuous shipbuilding industry.

Just pausing for a moment, for a long time Australia has lamented its ability to have a long-term shipbuilding industry. I remember in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years that the Labor Party did absolutely nothing to support the shipbuilding industry in Australia. Since the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government was defeated, we've had a lot of complaints from Labor about things that they never did, but this government, the Liberal-National government, has established a $90 billion continuous shipbuilding industry which won't just build ships but will train Australians in the finest trades relating to all aspects of shipbuilding. I envisage that in years to come we'll be exporting some of our skilled tradesmen to go and help other countries in shipbuilding programs. It's a wonderful program, it's a huge program, and it will give Australia a decent, ongoing and sustainable shipbuilding industry for many years into the future.

We are seeing the measures that the government has introduced actually work. The total number of people employed in the manufacturing sector in Australia is now 978,000. In fact, over 93,100 new manufacturing jobs were created in the 12 months to August 2018. So, whilst this bill talks about setting up a committee that will look at an Australia Fund to possibly help manufacturing jobs, the government's actually doing it already. As I say, the work the government's been doing is already having a very, very positive effect. The 25 months of consecutive expansion in the manufacturing area is the longest period since 2005. Unfortunately, Senator Carr's not taking part in this debate. He was the minister for industry in charge of manufacturing when all of the motor car manufacturing in Australia shut down, when shipbuilding ground to a halt and when many other manufacturing jobs were lost. That has changed under this government, which has a serious interest in manufacturing jobs and the skilled workers who actually—

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oops! Your government shut the whole thing down. Congratulations!

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

Shut what down?

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

No, you don't understand, Senator. You've only been here for a minute. You wouldn't understand that the premise to the shutdown of the manufacturing industry all occurred when Senator Carr was the minister. Senator Carr did nothing and eventually the car manufacturing industry ground down to a halt. And what did that? It was the fact that Senator Carr, as industry minister, did absolutely nothing to help the motor car building industry, the same as he and his party in government did absolutely nothing to help with a sustainable shipbuilding industry into the future. All they could do was complain about Australia not having a shipbuilding industry. They were in government for six years and did not build one ship—they did not even think about building one ship—and did nothing to support the car manufacturing industry and both of them failed. But, since the Liberal-National Party has been in charge, the number of people directly employed in the manufacturing sector in Australia is now almost a million workers. I repeat: 93,100 new manufacturing jobs have been created in just the last 12 months—something that never occurred when Senator Carr and the Labor Party were in charge. More than one million jobs have been created since the Liberal-National government was elected back in 2013.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

I hear Senator O'Neill shouting about some state election recently, but she never answers the fact that one million new jobs have been created in Australia since the Liberal-National party government was elected.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

You're right: we don't create the jobs. What we do is create facilities and the parameters so that private industry can invest and can create jobs that are great for Australian workers, because we are the party that is interested in the workers in Australia. We're not the party that only looks after the union bosses and the heavies in the union movement. We are the party that actually creates jobs for the workers in Australia.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill! Ignore the interjections.

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

I appreciate the thoughts behind Senator Burston's bill, which, again, is a bill to establish a joint parliamentary committee to look at whether an Australia Fund should be created, for all the right reasons. But I've demonstrated in the short time available to me just some of the things that the government's done that are already doing what Senator Burston imagines the Australia Fund bill might do. I also point out to the Senate that, as I mentioned previously, a similar bill was brought before the House of Representatives in 2014. A committee was set up, and it was informed by a public consultation process and inquiries. It held a number of hearings throughout Australia, including in Canberra, Tasmania and Melbourne. It heard witnesses from a range of stakeholders including industry peak bodies and Public Service officials. Furthermore, the committee received 18 submissions from groups from as wide a field as Oysters Australia, the Australian Prawn Farmers Association and rural business development. Based on the evidence, the committee did not believe that the case had been made from public submissions to support a new fund of the type outlined in this bill. Recommendation 9 of that committee's report stated:

The committee does not recommend the establishment of an Australia Fund.

So I won't be supporting this bill and the government won't be supporting this bill, for the reason that it's already been investigated by a parliamentary committee that decided not to recommend the establishment of a fund. As I've pointed out in my speech, the government has already, in different ways, done the sorts of things that the fund would seek to do if it were established following the parliamentary committee. I say to Senator Burston: in fact, you're repeating or borrowing from the ideas already introduced by this government. I might say Mr Palmer is very good at that, and I always take it as a sign of praise that Mr Palmer also has pinched the idea that I have been talking about for some months now, about a review of the current zone tax rebate system. I see on TV advertisements that Mr Palmer has picked up my idea and is now talking about it. I quite like Mr Palmer, but I say with respect to him that his idea of giving everyone 200 kilometres from a capital city a 20 per cent reduction in income tax just doesn't pass the seriousness test. But I'm hopeful, and I keep advocating to the government that the zone rebate scheme—set up, I concede, by a Labor government in 1945—was a good scheme. It ticked all the right boxes then. It needs review and updating, and it needs an indexation of the benefits. I'm hopeful that the government will hear the calls for a review of that existing zone tax rebate scheme and the analogous remote area allowance.

But thanks to Senator Burston for raising this important issue. It allows me to point out the things this government is already doing to address the concerns that Senator Burston raised when opening this debate.

Debate interrupted.