Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators McAllister and Pratt today relating to a Four Corners report and to grants and funding of government programs.

In recent years there has been a serious ongoing global discussion about the experiences and mistreatment of women at work and at home, and the stories that have arisen during the course of that discussion have been shocking to many but disappointingly familiar to many more. We know that discrimination and harassment of women at work is a problem in Australia and that it is a widespread problem. And it would be a mistake to believe that the parliament or any other work place is immune.

I want to acknowledge the bravery of all of the women who have told their stories as part of this ongoing discussion, including the women who told their stories last night. That cannot have been easy. These are important conversations that we need to have, and we need to listen. The claims of women should not be easily dismissed, as they may have been in the past. No matter what side of politics you're from, staff members working here should feel safe and supported. But, as suggested on last night's program, this may not be the experience of many working in this building. This parliament needs to commit to work in a bipartisan way to make this workplace better. This is a workplace that is significant to us, but it is significant to all Australians. It is the property of the Australian people, and we have an obligation to make it the best place it can possibly be.

Yet today we saw the Prime Minister, I think, precipitously, dismiss the claims that were made last night. Serious allegations have been raised by more than one party, but there was no acknowledgement from the Prime Minister in his statement today of the seriousness of these allegations or of the broader issue of sexual harassment and sexism experienced in workplaces across the country. The Prime Minister has indicated he intends to take no further action on some of the specific claims raised last night, and he suggested that these are issues of the past. Partisanship may feel comfortable to the Prime Minister and others in this building. It may feel familiar, but this is not a time for that. This is a time and an opportunity for the Prime Minister to show leadership. There is a chance to make the parliament a safer place for women to work. I hope that the Prime Minister, notwithstanding his comments today, will take that opportunity. It's important here in the parliament and it's important more broadly.

A survey by the Human Rights Commission shows one in three people have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace in the past five years. We've had a national inquiry conducted by the Human Rights Commission which surveyed 10,000 people, consulted with 600 people directly and made 55 recommendations, and, to date, we do not have a response from Mr Porter to that important report.

The process of responding is not straightforward. The process of changing culture is not straightforward. And it is true that the Australian Labor Party has been on a long journey, a journey I have been privileged to be part of over the more than 20 years that I have been a member of the Labor Party. It started, I think, in earnest and seriousness when we committed to increasing the number of women in our ranks through affirmative action. We have worked over a long period of time to improve our culture, to build a culture which is respectful and inclusive and where complaints are handled appropriately. There is no point in time when any of us can afford to say: 'Job done. That's concluded. That's finished.' This is an ongoing project to which we all have responsibilities, and any instance where a staff member or a parliamentarian feels disrespected or is unsafe should be addressed.

We want women and young people to look at our building and see a place where leaders act at their best. We want women and young people to come to this building and feel that they can contribute. We can't pretend that a transformation will be easy. In our case, it has taken deliberate effort over time by many, but this is something that is worth doing.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to echo a number of the sentiments that were there in Senator McAllister's contribution about absolutely the need for women and men to feel safe in the workplace, for there to be no discrimination, bullying, harassment or any other poor behaviour of any sort from people in this place, whether they be ministers of the Crown, whether they be shadow ministers, whether they be members of parliament. So we are on a unity ticket in terms of condemning that kind of behaviour.

In relation to Minister Tudge and Minister Porter, I would refer to the statements that they have issued. The Prime Minister holds the ministerial staff code of conduct and the ministerial code of conduct in the highest regard. He holds it to the highest standards. In fact, it's why the Prime Minister strongly supported the inclusion of a ban on relations between ministers and their staff in 2018, and the Prime Minister continues to uphold that ban. Separately, in 2018, the Prime Minister directed the Liberal Party to review its complaints and disputes resolution processes. This resulted in the Liberal Party's first National Code of Conduct and the Complaints and Dispute Resolution Policy.

I wanted to turn to the other aspect of questioning from those opposite, and that was around quality of spend. This was what the Labor Party decided to devote much of question time to today. The Labor Party—the party of pink batts, the party of cash for clunkers, the party of cheques for dead people, the party of school hall rorts—decided that they wanted to make a point of quality spending. To use as their example, and to show just how out of touch they are, they decided to compare and contrast their wonderful record of spending with things like the Urban Congestion Fund; that was one of the things they were criticising today. The Labor Party are sitting there with their woeful record of managing the budget and managing the economy. They come in here—and we've got Senator Ciccone, a senator for Victoria—and criticise the fact that there were a lot of Urban Congestion Fund projects—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, please take your seat. Senator Keneally?

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just call to your attention that Senator Seselja is reflecting on who is in the chamber and who is not—in this case, who is. He is not meant to do that in the course of debate.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Seselja, I do remind you that the President did make particular note that during COVID time—and this week, given that we are still operating on remote participation—it wouldn't be appropriate to make note of who is in the chamber and who isn't. The President made that statement some time ago.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Deputy President: senators for Victoria, like Senator Ciccone and others, would be highly embarrassed by the line of attack from the Labor Party today, where, in comparing and contrasting their woeful record of spending, they decided to go after the Urban Congestion Fund and the fact that Melbourne—which was growing very rapidly up until COVID—had significant investment from the Commonwealth government in helping people to get to and from work more quickly and more safely. The modern Labor Party decide that that is their line of attack, or that support for small business is their line of attack, or that environmental remediation on the Great Barrier Reef is their line of attack, and they invite us to compare and contrast.

We do compare and contrast today, because of the critique of the Labor Party that is coming from the member for Hunter. The member for Hunter has very much belled the cat on what the modern Labor Party stands for. I would put this to senators today: if there is no room on the Labor Party front bench for people like the member for Hunter, Mr Fitzgibbon, that is a message to millions of Australians that there is no room in the modern Labor Party for them—for working people in our regions, for people in the Hunter, for people in Central and North Queensland, for people in Northern Tasmania or for people in regional Victoria. These are the people to whom the Labor Party, by forcing the member for Hunter out of his frontbench position today, have sent a message. They have sent a message saying: 'You're not welcome. We no longer stand for you.' That is what Mr Fitzgibbon is effectively saying today.

The Leader of the Opposition—'Each-Way Albo', as he's known, but we'll refer to him as the Leader of the Opposition in here—is constantly changing tack. He is pro-gas when he's in the Hunter and pro-coal when he's in Central Queensland, but anti those things when he goes back to Grayndler or central Melbourne. He is trying to be all things to all people. This week we saw the embarrassing thing where he wanted the Prime Minister to call President Trump, and then he said, 'No, no, I didn't say he should call him.' They are embarrassed over that side. They are embarrassed at what the opposition leader is doing, but they are more embarrassed, and the member for Hunter is more embarrassed, at what the modern Labor Party stands for. If people like Mr Fitzgibbon aren't welcome in the modern Labor Party on the front bench, then millions of Australians aren't welcome in the Labor Party either.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate as a senator who lives in regional Queensland, is very proud to be a member of the Labor Party and is very proud to be contributing to this debate today. I rise to take note of Senator Gallagher's question to Senator Birmingham in regard to the quality of government spending. Before I continue, can I associate myself entirely with the remarks of Senator McAllister and thank the women in this place, in parliament, for their leadership. Every woman should feel safe at work, even if their workplace is a place of power and powerful people. I thank Senator McAllister for her contribution today.

Senator Gallagher's question around quality spending raised many concerns, that people in regional Queensland have shared with me, about the deliberate spending of this government to prop up their own political interests rather than the national interest. Her question raised important issues about some of the scandals that we have seen from this government. We know that the sports rorts scandal was not just a one-off but is reflective of a pattern of rorting behaviour. We know that back in April 2018 the then Turnbull government awarded a $444 million grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. This was the single largest environmental grant in Australia's history, and it was awarded to a small charity with only six full-time staff. Instead of going through a competitive tender process to decide how this money could be spent it is clear that it was a captain's pick, a decision made for political purposes instead of the national interest.

The Auditor-General found that the department had failed to properly follow government rules around making the grant. There were no clear specific or targeted objectives for the funding, just broad and general guidelines. It was a $444 million grant—and there are no guidelines on how this government requires that money to be spent. I know because I've sat in Senate estimates with the environment department and have asked them questions about how this money is being spent.

Unfortunately, we can't call members of the foundation to Senate estimates to ask them how this money is being spent and if it is helping the Great Barrier Reef and the people in regional Queensland who rely on jobs supported by the Great Barrier Reef. We don't know, because the government appointed this money to the foundation outside the rules of government spending. The government argued that the foundation would leverage the funds to attract further investment in reef restoration from the private sector, but they have failed on that target. All of the justification, all the reasons, for making this grant don't stack up.

It's the same when it comes to the Urban Congestion Fund. Analysis by Labor shows that 83 per cent of the $3 billion program went to government or marginal Labor seats so they could win them, so they could further their political interests. The funds were not allocated through a competitive grants process. Twenty-eight per cent of the national funding went to four marginal Liberal seats. The Audit Office has commenced an audit into the administration of the commuter car parks project within the Urban Congestion Fund. We look forward to receiving that report.

Whether it's sports rorts or the Great Barrier Reef fund or the Urban Congestion Fund, we know this government always dismisses these concerns. They have an inherent belief that they are entitled to spend these taxpayer funds however they choose, to give them to whoever they want, no matter the governance or merit or whether it's in the national interest or not. It's money for mates, jobs for mates and grants for votes. That is not quality government spending.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond and take note of the questions asked by Labor that went to the issue of spending. I am very proud to stand here today and speak of the government's response, particularly this year, in dealing with the coronavirus challenge, the spending commitments that we have made to assist Australians in getting through the recession that was created by the coronavirus pandemic. We've seen the impact of programs like JobKeeper and how that came at the most appropriate and immediate time it was needed, at a time when businesses were worried about what they would do with their staff. They knew what impact it would have to their businesses if they let people go and, when trying to recover, not having that workforce with them to help build for their future. They were very concerned about what that would mean not only in dealing with the immediate issue but also, importantly, in how they would recover on the other side of that. The JobKeeper program has enabled many, many millions of Australians right across Australia to remain connected with their employer.

We've heard questions today about a program that has been there to support local businesses. This program really struck a chord with Australians because, particularly when they were in the real peak of the pandemic, when businesses were needing to shut and when people were being told to stay at home, Australians were looking for ways that they could support each other and support their local businesses and local shops. I have spoken to many people across Western Australia, my great home state, who are tradespeople and have actually seen their business go even better than before. That is remarkable. Western Australians have looked to take up opportunities to be able to do renovations on their homes. A good friend of mine, one of my best friends that I went to school with, is a plumber and his business is going better than it ever has before, he says. People are doing renovations on their homes. They are taking the opportunity to do work on their homes. This came about because of an attitude and a commitment by Australians and of Western Australians in particular in my great home state to look for opportunities to invest locally, to purchase locally and to support local businesses.

So this program, GO LOCAL FIRST, run by the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, COSBOA, went to the very heart of that initiative. It tapped into the very spirit of what Australians were looking for and it has given Australians the opportunity to see where they can connect their dollars with local opportunities, to invest into local businesses by using their purchasing power to make decisions to support local businesses. This has happened because the government support initiatives like this, because we support business. We support local business. We support the intelligence of Australians to be able to know where to direct their funding, to be able to know where to direct their wages that they receive. Why is that? Because we as a government know that the best people in Australia to spend their money is their own selves. That's why we have brought in tax cuts. That's why we're providing more so people can keep more of the money that they earn. That is why these people are able to take advantage of these options.

The support that has been able to be given by the government is because we started at the beginning of this coronavirus pandemic and this challenge from a strong position. Our government is working from a position of economic strength and record employment. We were able to take action because we had worked hard in the past to bring the budget back into balance and maintain our AAA credit rating. That's why our spending has been prudent, that's why our spending has been sensible and that's why our spending has been able to target and hit the mark with Australians and businesses in ensuring that the opportunities are going where they are most needed to support those that need them the most.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise today to take note of answers provided by the Leader of the Government. I want to echo and support the contribution by my colleague Senator McAllister. I think it's very important that as individuals and people who are leaders for our community in this place we set an example. Whether people have been here for a very long time or, as in my case, a very short period, we all aspire to make sure that we provide the right example to future leaders—to future women, in particular—and to see that this place is representative of everyone, regardless of race or gender. For us, we do need to stand up and say, 'Enough is enough.' We get to a stage in life where we have to start to think about the actions that we and our colleagues take and call out those actions for what they are. After all, we can't afford to walk past standards and say, 'Do we believe that they're acceptable or not?' We are community leaders and we have been elected to this place by our peers, so we have to do the right thing.

I also want to take the opportunity to place on the record my thoughts about the answers that were given today by the government. Senator Gallagher asked Senator Birmingham about the coalition claiming to be great economic managers, but, although there is always a headline, there is no substance behind that headline. We hear talk about the millions and billions of dollars that they're going to spend, and yet, when we dig deep, as we did through the recent Senate estimates, there is no detail. One needs to ask: Is this all about good photo opportunities? Do they like to stand up for the cameras and get that front page? They don't deliver or follow up for the Australian people. The budget has racked up close to a trillion dollars of debt, but that doesn't inspire in me and my colleagues the belief that there is a bold plan for jobs, the jobs that many Australians need right now, especially in my home state of Victoria. We're close to a trillion dollars of debt and yet we are still expecting close to 200,000 people to join the jobless queues by Christmas. How many families won't be able to put food on the table? How many families will have to have very hard discussions about how they are going to make mortgage repayments and pay their bills? The cost of living does not seem to be on the radar of this government, especially in my electorate of Chisholm.

My electorate is supposedly in the Liberal Party heartland, and yet a lot of people call my office every day because they're struggling to understand how the government has left them behind. I invite the government to come to my electorate of Chisholm and talk to the small-business operators I regularly talk to. Their business activity statements are due, and yet they've had no or very little support in the government's recent budget to get their businesses up and running again. But that hasn't stopped this government from neglecting the many millions of people in Victoria. In question time today we heard that the leader of the government in this place is acutely aware that the quality of government spending is what matters when it comes to how we invest. All I can say is: How can he and his government defend a decision to spend 83 percent of the $3 billion allocated under the Urban Congestion Fund in Liberal-held seats? Do Liberal-held electorates deserve better quality roads than Labor-held electorates or electorates held by independents or other parties? Are Liberal-held electorates worth 83 percent more? These questions really do need to be asked. When you dig deep, you find that the voters in Dunkley have questions about the quality of these investments, as do the voters in Scullin, Hotham and Bruce. Time and time again we seem to hear only rhetoric from the coalition government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.